[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: computer-go: A problem with understanding lookahead



At 12:36 PM 1/24/01 -0800, you wrote:
...
The easily computed quantities that a Go evaluator can use (liberties,
group size, geographical influence) are laughably bad as evaluators;
and moving beyond these obvious elements is uncharted territory.
i wonder if anyone has had any luck with concepts like "thick" and "thin", or "light" and "heavy", over concentrated etc?

...
The fundamental difference is that in chess, if you use simple concepts
such as I outlined, you can understand a position and tell who is winning
a large percentage of the time.  In Go, you undersand NOTHING until you
have decided which stones are dead, and that is a fundamentally hard
problem.
maybe a probability of being dead is better in the sense that a lot of "dead" stones get rescued later on due to liberties changing or ignoring ko threats. it makes sense to focus on "dead" stones, but it may be somewhat of a red herring?

thanks



---
ray tayek http://home.earthlink.net/~rtayek/
orange county java users group http://www.ocjug.org/
want privacy? http://www.freedom.net/
hate spam? http://samspade.org/ssw/