RE: [computer-go] Modern brute force search in go

["David Fotland" <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

During tactical and eye search, I think null move would be very effective.
There is often
one threat, with a single defense, and all other moves are irrelevant.  My
tactical searches
are very driven by threat analysis, but I do it with recognition code, not
null move.

Because tactical searches are very deep and narrow, I don't use iterative
deepening in the
tactician.  My life and death search has small trees, so it's a best first
search, also without
iterative deepening.  Without iterative deepening, I can't use null move
myself.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 2:32 PM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Modern brute force search in go
> 
> 
> 
> > GCP has been doing now a few measurements with R=3 with his 
> simple go 
> > program and already has a branching factor of 7.45
> 
> Vincent, I  don't see how it's  possible to benefit from  
> null move in GO.  I used  to think this was  be perfect for 
> go, but  I have serious doubts after thinking about the problem.
> 
> In chess, null move measures  threats by essentially doing a 
> pass with a depth reduced search.  This gives one side 2 
> moves in a row and this is deadly in chess and effectively 
> measure threats even with seriously reduced depths.
> 
> But in GO it seems to me that  even with the advantage of 2 moves in a
> row the reduced  sub-search depth makes you blind.   That's because it
> usually  requires really  long sequences  of specific  moves.   I know
> there are  cases where it would  be quite beneficial  in 
> filtering out junk, but I don't believe it would be the rule 
> like in chess, it would be only the exception.
> 
> Does anyone have  any evidence that null move can  be pretty 
> useful in Go?  I ask this question honestly, I don't know the answer.
> 
> - Don
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> 


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