I agree that group strength can't be a single number. That's why I classify groups instead. Each classification is treated differently when estimating territory, when generating candidate moves, etc. The territory counts depend on the strength of the nearby groups.
Monte Carlo has a big advantage in that it estimates the probability of winning the game, rather than my old approach of trying to estimate the final score. David > > > For group strength I had about 20 classes with separate evaluators > > (two clear eyes, one big eyes, seki, semeai, run-or-live, one-eye-ko- > threat-to-live, dead-if-move-first, etc, etc). > > Was group strength an object of several parameters or was it a single > number derived from all those parameters? IMO, a single number cannot be > meaningful in general. > > > Groups strength was the core concept feeding into the full board > evaluation, which tried to estimate the score. > > But what WAS your group strength...?:) > > Score estimation of a given position should also depend on territory > counts, not only on group strength etc. > > -- > robert jasiek > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
