That certainly sounds reasonable. Though I still don't get why bots would frivolously fritter away the final cushion. Even a great bean counter should know that he can't expect his own count to be perfect. Then again perhaps todays bots are smarter about this, and the perplexing behaviour I'm thinking about is a thing of the past. Which would still leave a lack of advice for newbie-bots.
Stefan On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Nick Wedd <n...@maproom.co.uk> wrote: > On 25/06/2013 10:07, Petri Pitkanen wrote: >> >> Bots also fill in their own territory removing very distant threats if >> they can afford to do it. Probably saves a loss in one game out 100 or so. > > > I am not at all surprised by the phenomenon of half-point victories. > > One player, who can count perfectly, is trying to maximise its > probability of winning. The other player, who cannot count perfectly > and knows it, is trying to maximise his score. This naturally produces > a half-point win or a large loss for the former. > > You see a similar result, unintended by either player but a natural > outcome of their play, when a human 3-dan gives nine handicap stones > to a human 7-kyu. If the 3d attacks a weak group, the 7k tries to make > eyes for it, and is not good at telling real eyes from false eyes > until it is too late. The 3d tries to stop the group from making real > eyes, and is good at telling them from false eyes. The result is that > the group makes a string of false eyes, without either player having > any particular interest in this outcome. > > Nick > _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
