Don's draft standard reminded me of the corner cases. So here's
an even simpler example, this time trying to show that dead invading
stones can poison playout analysis depending on which definition of
pseudo-eyes is used ('a' is A1, 'b' is C1).
That makes three attempted examples so far (are the examples
valid for what they are trying to show?), trying to show:
- the "standard" Gobble pseudo-eye can both allow real eyes
to be filled and prevent sacrifices involving filling false eyes
(in all cases so far, resulting in own groups counting as more
likely dead, and opponent groups counting as more likely live;
but since the playouts are symmetric, that implies miscounting
both ways)
- the local pattern approach of Gobble can be poisoned by
dead opponent neighbours
I understand that some engines use pseudo-liberties, or may
not have connection information easily accessible all the time,
but for those who do maintain proper liberty counts: are there
any examples where Olga-style pseudo-eyes are not preferable
to (at least as good as) Gobble-style ones?
Claus
(
;
FF[4]
GM[1]
SZ[19]
AP[Jago:Version 5.0]
AB[ar][bs][bq][cq][dr][ds][dq][aq]
AW[br][cr][ap][bp][cp][dp][eq][er][es]
LB[as:a][cs:b]
C[The black group is "unconditionally" alive.
Gobble: 'a' is not an eye, group is unsettled (50% chance: black 'a' dies,
black 'b' lives).
Olga: 'a' is an eye, black 'b' the only possible local move: group is alive.
Oleg: 'a' is not an eye, group is unsettled (50% chance: black 'a' dies, black
'b' lives).]
GN[playout-eyes3]
)
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
