RE: [computer-go] Learning : was Chess programs versus go programs

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Arend Bayer
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 14:36
> To: computer-go
> Subject: RE: [computer-go] Learning : was Chess programs versus go
> programs
>
> This depth cutoff is relative to the full-board position we are
> analyzing, i.e. if we are at depth 4 in life-and-death reading and call
> out to the tactical reading, it will only read 3 plys with 5 liberties
> at the safety cutoff. I didn't get around to making the same experiment
> with GNU Go but that's why I don't expect it to be a drastic speed
> improvement.

I don't understand this. What use is reading 4-liberty tactics in 3 ply?
Even 3-liberty tactics won't be possible unless you don't count pass as a
ply. You might just as well save the time and declare it alive in those
cases. Am I missing something?

Anyway this depth restriction seems rather arbitrary. I wouldn't want
something to think it's dead because it can't read a 60-ply ladder to
capture a stone on the outside.

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