Seems like it needs to not count dead stones, otherwise it will believe that a large number of dead stones is better than a smaller number of live stones.
Any such rule will also need to differentiate between dead and seki. Terry McIntyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com> “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” -- Aesop ________________________________ From: Brian Sheppard <sheppar...@aol.com> To: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:24:35 PM Subject: [computer-go] Mercy rule position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A - X - O - - O - - B - - O - O O - O O C O O O X O - O O X D X X O O O - O X X E - X X O X O O X - F X - X X X X X X - G X X O O O O O X X H X O O X X O O O X J - O - X X - O O O O to play and win :-) The "play and win" is a joke, of course. O has a big, dead, one-eye group at bottom. But Pebbles simulations was winning this position at over 84% for O, no matter how long it searched. When I investigated, it turns out to be because of the "mercy rule." I had set the threshold at 25% of the board, or 20 stones difference between the sides. Here is a position: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A O - O O O - O - O B O O O O O O - O O C O O O - O - O O X D X X O O O X O X X E - X X O X O O X X F X - X X X X X X - G X X O O O O O X X H X O O O O O O O X J O O - X - O O O O O "wins" by mercy rule, 45 stones to 24 I can move the threshold, of course, and that "fixes" the problem. But I am wondering if there is a more reliable approach. What do you do in your program? _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
