> > I don't like using the words "good" and "bad" when describing the > quality of the moves because I try to use terminology that's more > descriptive (although I fail miserably many times.) In a lost > position how do you distinguish one move from another when they all > lose? It sounds funny to me when you say (in so many words) that > once the program is losing it starts playing "bad moves." > > Since this is a subjective quality can we use a subjective term such as > "normal" to describe moves that are cosmetically appealing to us? > And perhaps "ugly" to describe moves that are not? > > My feeling is that in lost positions, the only thing we are trying to > accomplish is to make the moves more cosmetically appealing (normal) > and > at best improve the programs chances of winning against weak players. > After all, if the program is in bad shape, then to be completely > realistic it's probably going to lose to the player that put it in this > bad shape.
This is chess thinking and it is not true for go. In chess if you have a clearly lost position (like down a piece without compensation), you can only hope for a miracle. But go is a game of accumulating points. Every player, even professionals, make mistakes in the endgame and play moves that don't optimize the score. I'm talking about endgame positions, which by definition have no unsettled groups, so we aren't talking about moves that have different probabilities of causing an opponent mistake. I'm talking about making a move that gains 2 points when there is another one that gains 3 points. If you are objectively 3 points behind with perfect play with 100 endgame moves to go, it is quite likely that you can catch up against a high Dan player. Against a low Dan player you can likely catch up 5 to 10 points in the endgame. Of course you can only catch up if you play the moves that gain the most points every time you move. If you make a move that costs a point while making an obvious threat, you are falling further behind. Good moves are the moves that gain the most points in the local situation. Often there are several goo d local moves, for example the one that gains the most points but lets the opponent move first elsewhere, and the one that gains fewer points but lets me move first elsewhere. If I can gain 5 points locally, but play a move that only gains 4 points and otherwise has no difference, it's clear that the 4 point move is a bad move. The 5 point move might not be the best move on the whole board (if there is a 6 point move somewhere else), but we can still say that the 5 point move is good and the 4 point move is bad. This has nothing to do with "cosmetically appealing". Once the endgame starts and groups are solid and endgame regions become independent, then it is all about making the move that gains the most points. This kind of endgame play is not obvious on 9x9 sine that board is so small there isn't much endgame. David _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
