>There is one other issue I have seen that is similar. Sometimes >Lazarus will play a move that doesn't hurt nor help it's position. >It's not a wasted move because the opponent must respond or else lose. >An example is a simple self-atari which itself is a direct threat. The >opponent is forced to respond, so there is no reason not to try for the >cheap shot in his territory, but in the grand scheme of things this move >is a distraction and if you could remove them from the tree it would >help the program focus on what is really important. However, it >sometimes pays to try moves like these. When I "fixed" this problem in >Lazarus, it started winning less against weaker programs simply because >they sometimes fail to defend.
And is that version stronger against higher-level programs? Losing against weaker programs might be the cost that we should pay temporarily. I think one of the problems is in testing. Currently we have almost no way to judge whether a improvement is good or bad, other than playing a lot of games against GNU Go. It takes very long time and seems inefficient. Moreover, even it may not be a very good method. GNU Go often cannot respond to an obvious bad move correctly, so pruning such moves decrease the winning rate. -- Yamato _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
