RE: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Vincent
> Diepeveen
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 16:04
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play
>
> It's especially this what i try to write down here in the go programming
> mailing list. They are having evaluation functions which are not in
> comparision to the search being used in the program. The search
> is the weak
> part IMHO. You can never *ever* beat a professional player if your search
> isn't going to find basic tactics.

True, you can't play well without basic tactics. However, the reason basic
tactics are not found is primarily due to poor (and expensive) evaluation,
not due to poor search.

> Claims that things like nullmove do not work we had in the 90s in
> computerchess too. It were always university researchers doing
> such claims.
>

'Too'? In Go nullmove has been used succesfully since the 80's and I don't
think there were many that questioned it's usefulness.

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