Re: [computer-go] citation

[Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev@xxxxxxx>]

Darren Cook wrote:
> > So, what exactly is wrong with using John's definition, and applying
> > the term "ladder" to it?  That seems the most natural thing to call
> > it, and also the most useful definition to attach to the term.
> 
> I've always referred to it as "2-lib tactical searching".
> 
> With the stricter ladder definition you could scan out along a diagonal to 
> read the ladder. Or at least jump to the point where you have to read out 
> something special.
> 
> Having said that I read ladders with general tactical search code - messing 
> around with special code has never seemed worth it. Do any of the strong 
> programs do special ladder handling?

GNU Go does.  If we consider ladder in "broad sense".  There is attack2()
which attacks strings with two liberties.  That function doesn't mind if
the string gets 3 or more liberties in process.  simple_ladder_attack()
also attacks strings with two liberties, but if the string can gets 3 or
more liberties, ladder attack gives up.  However, unlike attack2(), ladder
attack (almost) doesn't care about how deep it reads, it finishes all
reads except maybe some in pathological positions.

Paul
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/