RE: [computer-go] Minimax with random evaluations

["David Fotland" <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In go, isn't it true that legal move count is correlated with territory?

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:25 PM
> To: drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Minimax with random evaluations
> 
> 
> 
> > Ok, I will put on a legal-move-count evaluation test to see what 
> > happens.
> 
> And I'm running it now.  I implemented it the slow naive way, 
> generating a set of legal moves twice, once for each side.
> 
> I'm pretty sure this is equivalent to simply counting single 
> point eyes.
> 
> I don't have enough games to give the full picture but after 
> a few minutes the legal move count version is easily 
> dominating both the random evaluation and the random mover.
> 
> 
> LMC(5) = Legal Move Count at 5 ply
> RE(5)  = Random Evaluation at 5 ply
> RM     = Play a random legal move.
> 
>   LMC(5)  vs  RM     97.4%  (38 games)
>   LMC(5)  vs  RE(5)  87.1%  (31 games)
> 
> 
> - Don
> 
>      
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    > This is an assumption I'd like to see tested. I share 
> your intuition 
>    > that move-count matters, also in relation to Go, 
> especially on a small 
>    > board. I expect it to make less difference for bigger 
> boards. But 
>    > intuition can have the awful characteristic of being 
> completely wrong, 
>    > and it seems there's an easy way to test this hypothesis.
> 
>    Ok, I will put on a legal-move-count evaluation test to see what
>    happens.
> 
>    But even if it scores well, it doesn't necessarily follow 
> that it is
>    because it's mimicking mobility.  My intuition however is that it
>    basically does.  
> 
>    Speaking of intuition, I couldn't agree more with you.  I 
> have learned
>    NOT to trust my intution.  Intuition is very useful for 
> many things,
>    but not for drawing hard conclusions.
> 
>    - 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/
> 


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