> Stefan Kaitschick wrote: > >Here's a suggestion to extend RAVE to better handle it: > >There are 20 points within keima distance of any point not close to the > >edge.(5*5 without the corners) > >When RAVE values are backed up, they are put into the category defined by > >the previous opponents move. > >(21 categories, 20 + other. All added up yield the normal RAVE value) > >This amounts to accumulating a killer heuristic for local points. > >It can used in 2 ways: > >1. prefer the best local response > >2. if there is a good local response for the opponent, penalize a candidate > >move > > I don't understand what it is useful for. I think that the near points > from the previous move are already preferred by proximity heuristics. > Could you give us an example? > > -- > Yamato
I guess you are right that the proximity heuristic is very helpful in reducing the thrashing I described above. But it can't do everything. After failing locally, the move generator will at some point stumble over non-local ko threats. And these moves will immediately improve the win rate, in part by not beeing correctly answered and in part by moving the local focus away from the original problem. So refuting a non-local threat comes at a fairly high price. I don't see how this can be avoided. But once a successful answer is found it would be nice to rember it as a specific answer to the threat. Not only for answering a threat - the proximity heuristic can again do a large part of the work here. A ko threat will typically have a great win rate against all moves except one. That might give the move a decent RAVE value even after it has been refuted. But a non-local move against which a single strong refutation has been found, should be tried less often than if the win rates of attempted refutations were more balanced. Stefan _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
