Re: [computer-go] rotate board

2007-12-20 Thread Arthur W Cater
I stand corrected. Arthur - Original Message - From: Álvaro Begué <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:37 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] rotate board To: computer-go > On Dec 20, 2007 11:23 AM, Arthur W Cater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > &g

Re: [computer-go] rotate board

2007-12-20 Thread Arthur W Cater
I think that would be worse. There are lots of sets of 8 numbers that sum the same, far more than there are sets of 8 with the same minimum element. Arthur - Original Message - From: Álvaro Begué <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] rot

Re: [computer-go] rotate board

2007-12-20 Thread Arthur W Cater
That was my first thought too - actually my 2nd, my 1st was (8*8/2)/(2^64) - but I reason, one particular choice of position A's 8 must match one particular choice of position B's, rather than any one of A's matching the particular one of B's. But since the choosing is biased, the chance of co

Re: [computer-go] Re: pseudoliberties

2007-03-29 Thread Arthur W Cater
> It's really a way to incrementally update liberties in a > fast way - each stone keeps it's own count of liberties > and it is summed - but of course it doesn't represent > the true number of liberties since a point can get > counted 2 or more times.However, if the count goes > to zero, the