.
Stefan
- Original Message -
From: "David Fotland"
To: "'computer-go'"
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: [computer-go] two won semiais = lost game?
The playouts often give the side with fewer liberties the advantage in a
semeai. This c
Ah. A "single path to victory" bottleneck. That makes it even worse than I
thought.
This is probably also the problem when mc bots judge an invadable to be
safe.
Stefan
One problem is approach moves. Say W has a group with 3 liberties, but
they
must be played in order (perhaps one is an eye
> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 2:36 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: [computer-go] two won semiais = lost game?
>
> I have a general question: how good are the current information gathering
> mechanisms in the mc tree to insure that advantagous semiais are actually
> won? Random
to:computer-go-
> boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Stefan Kaitschick
> Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 6:32 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] two won semiais = lost game?
>
> > It is obvious that the current mechanism is bad. And another problem on
>
It is obvious that the current mechanism is bad. And another problem on
the
wrong evaluation is the amplification of the error. When there are
unresolved
life/death or semeais on the board, typical MC programs become weak
because
of the instability of the simulations.
I think that we need a ne
Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
>I have a general question: how good are the current information gathering
>mechanisms in the mc tree to insure that advantagous semiais are actually
>won? Random playouts will surely give the side with more libs the advantage,
>but to what degree? Lets say the leading s
I have a general question: how good are the current information gathering
mechanisms in the mc tree to insure that advantagous semiais are actually
won? Random playouts will surely give the side with more libs the advantage,
but to what degree? Lets say the leading side wins the semiai in 2/3 of
