On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 09:00:54PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > I'm wondering if there's some framework for studying combinatoric > aspects of games that are not only technically Go, but also actually > resemble real Go games played by competent players? > > This research doesn't touch my heart very deeply because it seems > that the astonishing numbers rise up only while exploiting "loopholes" > in the technical rules formulation rather than their intention - passing > while you still have moves that'd improve your score, putting > whole-board groups in self-atari instead of capturing enemy groups > in atari, etc. > > How would the results change if we approximated more realistic games > by introducing just the same basic restriction that we use in Monte > Carlo simulations - (i) filling your own true eye is invalid move, > (ii) do not pass if a move is avilable.
Maybe a more formal way to express my concern: it should be easy to come up with (of course ugly or expensive to verify) rule modifications that would still allow >99.9% or more pro games to be valid, but invalidate games proving these results in just a few moves. Can we reach some results (re longest games, number of games, etc.) that don't have this property? -- Petr Baudis If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers, you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go