Don Dailey wrote:
I think the proof tree for both sides
can avoid those nearly infinite loops. I do agree that there are some
practical difficulties to doing this and being able to claim it's a proof.
One might start with a weak solution that makes some presuppositions
like Never play
Don Dailey wrote:
There is no need to explore every cycle to get your proof.
Long cycles are a good example where one can start by making a weak
solution. Just change your presuppositions. Invent a long cycle rule
like A play recreating the position after 4+ plays ends the game (or
your
Having made suggestions for how to start study by restricting tree
depth, let me continue by making suggestions for restricted breadth. For
decades everybody has been complaining about a too great branching
factor. Cut it right at its source: Add presuppositions aka rules that
restrict it.
I've written dozens of games with alpha-beta searches, so I think
it's fair to say that I have a basic understanding of the process.
Your description is correct but incomplete. Alpha beta is good at eliminating
lines of play once a strong outcome is known somewhere in the tree, but much
weaker
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Dave Dyer dd...@real-me.net wrote:
I've written dozens of games with alpha-beta searches, so I think
it's fair to say that I have a basic understanding of the process.
Your description is correct but incomplete. Alpha beta is good at
eliminating
lines of
Some lines of play involving large captures will effectively never
terminate, even with superko rules in effect.
I doubt it is possible to eliminate all these non-terminating
lines of play in any way that is provably correct.
.. So while claims of solution by exhaustive search might be very
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Dave Dyer dd...@real-me.net wrote:
Some lines of play involving large captures will effectively never
terminate, even with superko rules in effect.
I doubt it is possible to eliminate all these non-terminating
lines of play in any way that is provably
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Dave Dyer dd...@real-me.net wrote:
Some lines of play involving large captures will effectively never
terminate, even with superko rules in effect.
But both sides need not play into this to build a proof tree. By the way,
an alpha/beta search IS IN FACT a
You can just prove that you can make a large-enough chain that is
unconditionally alive. I believe that's what Erik did. In practice,
you cannot do an exhaustive search using superko rules because then
hash table scores cannot be used.
I don't think you can always do that. For example, if
there are no chains of size 30 on a 5x5 board, and if after a
large capture the remaining stones are unconditionally alive
the void at the location of the capture cannot be very large.
Do remember that we are talking about 5x5 with the first
move in the center as the winning move.
Cheers,
David
At 06:31 PM 5/22/2009, David Doshay wrote:
there are no chains of size 30 on a 5x5 board,
I'll concede for a 5x5 board, but I think my point
is valid for sufficiently large boards, probably 7x7.
Almost any strategy other than playing out all legal moves
involves a lot of hand waving that is
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Dave Dyer dd...@real-me.net wrote:
At 06:31 PM 5/22/2009, David Doshay wrote:
there are no chains of size 30 on a 5x5 board,
I'll concede for a 5x5 board, but I think my point
is valid for sufficiently large boards, probably 7x7.
Almost any strategy other
12 matches
Mail list logo
