Re: [computer-go] double threats

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

Why don't you assign a probability? I think probabilities are useful 
anyway because of some inherent freedom of choice in non-final positions.

For example in this case the black blocks are 50% alive. (top 9x9)

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

Best,
Erik



Jens Lieberum wrote:
> Go programs often analyse the tactical status of blocks (sometimes
> called strings) of stones. A block tactician performs some local search
> and then assigns the status ALIVE, DEAD or UNCLEAR to a block.
> I have the problem how to treat double threats in this context. Let's
> say that two blocks are threatened and the defender may choose which
> block he wants to give up. Then the block tactician might treat the two
> blocks as "half-DEAD" or it might treat the bigger (or "more important")
> block as ALIVE and the smaller one as DEAD. None of these solutions is
> really satisfying and some special treatment seems to be necessary.
> Since the situation is often too complex for a global quiescence search,
> a good solution of a direct evaluation of double threats might be
> helpful. Does anybody know about a good solution of this problem?
>  
> Jens 
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go