Re: FW: [computer-go] SlugGo approach: GNU vs.Goliath

[Arend Bayer <arend.bayer@xxxxxx>]

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Mark Boon wrote:

> This has two bits of information I was missing earlier. I take a single
> evaluation of Goliath's score of the future board only. You combine
> evaluation of the current candidate with its future board. I can see how
> this reduces the effect of the horizon a great deal, but I can't see yet why
> combining the evaluation of the future board with the current board helps.
> To me this is counter-intuitive, so I'll have to think a bit more about
> that. Any rationale from your side why you chose to do it this way? I
> suppose your territory/influence based evaluation doesn't account for
> dead-groups, so you don't 'see' the threats at the end of the sequence? And
> do you intend to keep this evaluation approach when you add branching?

You should keep in mind that the two valuations are very different. The
SlugGo valuation at the end of the future board is just territory plus
influence. GNU Go's one-ply evaluation does some things that SlugGo
cannot/does not do explicitly, like giving bonus for moves strategically
attacking/defending weak groups. Also, I would guess that it's
territorial evaluation is a little more precise (somewhat long story,
and it's just a guess until I have seen the actual code in SlugGo).

Arend

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