Re: computer-go: question

[David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A lot to tremendously, say 4.5 on your scale.  It would take a little
bit of adjustment to the program to take advantage of this information 
and get that result.  Many Faces loses many games because it fails
to live somewhere or lets some group die.  This oracle would free up
my time to work more on territory evaluation.  I'd guess an immediate
2 or 3 stone improvement, and another stone or two after a few months
work, say to around igs 7k-9k*.  The fast oracle would let me do
much more full board reading, since it would probably speed up the
evaluation function by a factor of 5 to 10X

Further improvement would need much better full board move generators,
better evaluation of thickness, influence, etc.

David

At 05:46 PM 12/10/99 -0500, Tim Klinger wrote:
>
>I have a question for those of you with working go-playing programs.  
>
>If you had an oracle that could tell you the life and death status of any
>block on the board, taking essentially no time to do so, how much do you
>think it would improve your program?  If you like, you can also assume that
>the oracle tells you how to go about making life for a block (if it's
>possible).  You can even assume it tells you the *best* way to go about it,
>with respect to an evaluation function of your choosing.
>
>If it's easier, answer the question using one of the following ratings:
>
>(1) not at all, (2) a little, (3) a fair bit, (4) a lot, (5) tremendously
>
>and feel free to offer any qualifications.
>
>Thanks.  I'm looking forward to your responses.
>
>Tim
>
>Just in case there's any confusion about what I mean by a 'block', I mean a
>maximal set of adjacent stones of the same color (black or white).  I don't
>mean groups or chains or anything less solidly connected.
>
>
>
>