On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 15:45, Jeff Nowakowski <j...@dilacero.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote: >> So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying >> to lose as little as possible, resigning isn't an option. When ahead, >> there's no reason to try to win big, unless the goal is to reach a >> certain amount of points in a certain number of games. (Programs >> aren't greedy in the same way we people are :-) > > Let's assume that the program will play for a gambler, and will play > many (an indefinite number) of independent games. Then I think "no > reason to try to win big" is wrong. The rational approach to gambling > is to maximize your expected value for each game.
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the strategy should be to push each game to the limit. Trying to win with a large margin is less safe than with a small one, so it depends on the gambler's mindset. > So now the problem > becomes harder -- you have to realistically guess the risk vs reward > over a spectrum of points. And also possibly add knowledge about the opponent(s). > I think this game is clearly more difficult than a binary win/loss > game. This is exactly my opinion, too. regards, Vlad _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
