Ok, since you broke the truce so will I :-) On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:55 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > I guess we will just have to leave it as a disagreement about what > is important and what is mundane. I do not find the question of > correct endgame reading to be mundane.
What does this have to do with correct reading? Most of the reasonable programs, whether using area or territory scoring know what is going on, they know what is dead or alive. I don't think this discussion has anything to do with reading. > If SlugGo passes 100+ > times and in the process the opponent builds something that is > then mis-evaluated (as happened in a game against botnoid in > a KGS tournament) this is a very important thing for me to fix. > If it turns out to be correct as it hangs itself way out on the edge, > counting every liberty and cut correctly, then I am happy. > > It is not the winning, but the appearance of understanding that > is important to me. I"m not in to this. I would be programming chat-bots if I were. I'm not that interested in the aesthetics unless it comes for free. I just want to make the program play stronger. I don't care one whit if it can pass the Turing test or not. But how is this related to territory scoring? It's just as easy to make an area scoring program pass. I don't get it? I think I just stick with the more logical rule-set. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
