> I
would
agree
at
100%
if
it
wasn't
for
the
known
limitations:
> Nakade,
not
filling
own
eyes,
etc.
Because
the
program
is
blind
> to
them
it
is
blind
in
both
senses:
it
does
not
consider
those
> moves
when
defending,
but
it
does
not
consider
them
when
attacking
> either.
this is well said.
one problem with testing this is that there aren't a lot of good examples
of programs that can scale as easily but which are known to not have
these disadvantages. it's not an issue of time, really -- anything that
can scale as well as mogo would have been worth testing, even if it took 2x as
long to run, simply because it'd be nice for mogo to have some alternate
competition. and if it really did avoid these particular faults (nakade in the
corner, not filling own eyes, correct seki knowledge, etc.), it'd be
interesting to see when the two programs "crossed over", i.e. at what
ELO one started to dominate the other. that would give a rough idea about
the strength you'd need to be in order to take advantage of these flaws.
my guess is that anyone at the 1k level can generate these situations
with some regularity on a 9x9 board, and even more easily on a bigger board.
making them game-altering, however, might take a much stronger player, or
a much bigger board. i don't mean because bigger boards are harder for
programs to read, i literally mean simply because there is more room on
the board.
s.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
