Re: [computer-go] inside and outside influence

[Erik van der Werf <E.vanderWerf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Bruno,

I was playing around with your algorithm a bit and noticed something 
strange. In the example you gave in the paper (shown below)

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . O O # . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . O # . # . . . # . O . O . . O . .
 . . O # . . . . . a . . . . . O . # .
 . O # . . . . . . # . . . . . . . . .
 . O # . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
 . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . # . . . . . . . . . . . O . .
 . . # . . . . . . . . . . . O O # # .
 . . . . # . O . . O . . . . O # . . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . O # # . . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

my implementation does not find territory at the marked point a. For all 
other points the result is the same as what you show in "Figure out". 
Any idea why?

And another thing: you seem to be clipping values at a maximum/minimum 
of 64/-64. Is this at all important?

Regards,
Erik




p.s. I got this:

 O O . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . . .
 O O O O # # # # . . . . . O O O . . .
 O O O # # # # # # # . O O O O O O . .
 O O O # # # # # # . . . . . . O . # .
 O O # # # . . . # # . . . . . . . . #
 . O # # . . . . . . . . . . . . # # #
 . . # . . . . . . . . . . . . . # # #
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # # # #
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . # # # .
 . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . # . .
 . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . O . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . .
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O . .
 . . . . # . . . . . . . . . O O O . .
 . . # # . . . . . . . . . O O O # # .
 . . # # # . O O O O O O O O O # # # #
 . . . . . . . . O O O O O O # # # # #
 . . . . . . . . O O O . . . . . # # #



Bruno Bouzy wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I also think that, unfortunately, there is a few interest on board 
> static analysis on this list.
>
> I have been interested in the difference between 'inside' influence 
> (territory) and 'outside' influence several years ago. My proposal was 
> based on mathematical morphology explained in:
> http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~bouzy/publications/Bouzy-IJPRAI.pdf
> You surely know it. However, I post it to the list to avoid the "zero" 
> interest on this crucial topic...
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a écrit:
>
> > There's also still a great deal to be gained in board-analysis. I haven't
> > been following this mailing-list until recently again, but it always
> > strikes me that not much attention is given to new ways of gathering
> > information about the position in a static way. A few years ago I posted
> > an idea that I worked out about the concept of 'inside influence' and
> > 'outside influence' (also called 'territory' opposed to 'influence'). I
> > found a very elegant algorithm to support the idea too, but there seemed
> > to be zero interest for it. Where I think it was one of the most exciting
> > things because it suddenly makes visible the difference between real
> > territory and a 'moyo', or potential territory.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go