Just out of curiosity, how did you calculate these numbers?
On 3/31/07, Gunnar Farneback [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The remaining list up to 19x19 will come when the computations are done.
Maximum number of pseudoliberties for a single string on square
boardsizes up to 19x19:
1x1 0
Chris wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how did you calculate these numbers?
Dynamic programming, along the same lines as the algorithm to count
legal board positions which was discussed on this list two years ago and
is described in depth in the paper linked from
-go] Re: pseudoliberties
Chris wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how did you calculate these numbers?
Dynamic programming, along the same lines as the algorithm to count
legal board positions which was discussed on this list two years ago and
is described in depth in the paper linked from
http
This may be an instance where bitmaps would be handy - altho expensive in terms
of memory - a bitmap would require NxN bits for each string of connected stones.
For each connected string, maintain a bitmap of adjacent liberties. When two
strings are connected, add the two bitmaps together -
On 3/29/07, John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is 88 the maximum number of pseuoliberties a string can have on 9x9?
Make that 89:-)
-John
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
After some trial and error, I got 90
* * * *
*
* * * *
* * * ***
* * *
*** * * *
* * * *
*
* * * *
On 3/29/07, John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/07, John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is 88 the maximum number of pseuoliberties a string can have on 9x9?
Make
What's a pseudo-liberty? And how can there be more of them than there are
empty intersections (81) on the board?
- Original Message
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:02:01 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re
It appears to me that at least 91 is possible:
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xxx.xxx.
Weston
On 3/29/07, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After some trial and error, I got 90
* * * *
*
* * * *
* * * ***
* * *
*** * * *
*
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:02:01 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: pseudoliberties
After some trial and error, I got 90
* * * *
*
* * * *
* * * ***
* * *
*** * * *
* * * *
*
* * * *
On 3
On 3/29/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears to me that at least 91 is possible:
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xxx.xxx.
Nice! If you use O's instead like
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OO.O.OO.
Weston wrote:
It appears to me that at least 91 is possible:
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xxx.xxx.
Congratulations, you reached the maximum. Here are the maximum number of
pseudoliberties up to 13x13:
1x1 0
2x2 2
Pseudoliberties, as someone here explained recently, are a count of how
many adjacent empty spaces a program would find around a chain of stones
if it didn't bother to correct for how many times the same space gets
counted from different directions.
example
0 0 . .
X X 0 .
. X 0 .
. 0 . . The
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 14:29 -0400, John Tromp wrote:
On 3/29/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears to me that at least 91 is possible:
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xx.x.xx.
xx.xxx.xx
.xxx.xxx.
Nice! If you use O's instead
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:08 -0700, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote:
What's a pseudo-liberty? And how can there be more of them than there
are empty intersections (81) on the board?
That's why they are pseudo - they may not be real :-)
Actually, a pseduo-liberty is an actual liberty, but it can
be
On 3/29/07, John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears to me that at least 91 is possible:
Nice! If you use O's instead like
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OOO.OOO.
it looks pretty
I get 144 with a simple alternating pattern:
5 .O.O.O.O. 13
4 O.O.O.O.O 16
5 .O.O.O.O. 18
4 O.O.O.O.O 16
5 .O.O.O.O. 18
4 O.O.O.O.O 16
5 .O.O.O.O. 18
4 O.O.O.O.O 16
5 .O.O.O.O. 13
41 points 144
Fewer liberty points: 41 versus 54 in your pattern,
but more strings, hence more duplicate
On 3/29/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/07, John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears to me that at least 91 is possible:
Nice! If you use O's instead like
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OO.O.OO.
OO.OOO.OO
.OO.O.OO.
On 3/29/07, John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/07, John Tromp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/29/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears to me that at least 91 is possible:
Nice! If you use O's instead like
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
On 3/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote:
What's a pseudo-liberty?
And how can there be more of them than there are empty intersections
(81) on the board?
It is the sum of all stone's liberties in a group; ignoring common
liberties.
Arthur W Cater wrote:
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
Once upon a time, I did analysis of the inaccuracy of pseudo liberties.
Searching quickly, I found:
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2005-October/003839.html
For any interested, I did come up with a variant of pseudo liberties
that was a lot closer to real liberties. My post about
As far as I know, pseudo-liberties are only used for detecting a
capture or detecting atari. If this method you suggest has some value
beyond that, then I'm interested to learn more about it. But the
I have a nice mathematical puzzle for you.
Fix some k, say, 81.
What is the smallest range
Chris Fant wrote:
Once upon a time, I did analysis of the inaccuracy of pseudo liberties.
Searching quickly, I found:
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2005-October/003839.html
For any interested, I did come up with a variant of pseudo liberties
that was a lot closer to real
As far as I know, pseudo-liberties are only used for detecting a
capture or detecting atari. If this method you suggest has some value
beyond that, then I'm interested to learn more about it. But the
message that you linked seems to leave out a lot of details. You give
conclusions, but I
25 matches
Mail list logo
