[Computer-go] replacing dynamic komi with a scoring function

[Stefan Kaitschick]

I guess your right. I didn't think it through.
You probably have to treat it as a subtree property like RAVE.
Otherwise possession averages out to much.
Global possession would be a reasonable seed before the next move though.
The proper weight function would probably shift with the game phase.
Also, in cannot fully cure excessive optimism.
When the center is judged as territory too often, the weight function
undercorrects.

Stefan


On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Aja Huang <ajahuang at gmail.com> wrote:

>   It’s easy to detect “secure” territory by collecting the information of
> ownership from the playouts. If Black owns a region of points in 95% of the
> playouts, for example, we can “safely” say this region is Black’s territory
> (unless the playouts are seriously biased, which is independent to this
> problem). Go is a game of territory and the objective of every move is to
> gain more territory. To cure this problem, besides winning rate we might
> have to use the information of not only “average score” but also “average
> score of certain points”.
>
> Aja
>
>
>  *From:* Stefan Kaitschick <stefan.kaitschick at hamburg.de>
> *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2012 4:38 AM
> *To:* computer-go at dvandva.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Computer-go] replacing dynamic komi with a scoring
> function
>
> By the way, are we sure it is underestimation of the edges and corners ?
> Rather than overestimation of the centre ?
>
>>
>> I know those are equivalent for play itself, but the answer suggests
>> different tries for solution. In the first case, we want to make the bot
>> more aware that he will keep its edge territory. In the second, we want
>> to make it understand that inways made be made in its beautiful centre.
>>
>> Jonas
>>
>>
>
> I think they overestimate both the corners and the center, but they
> overestimate the corners less. :-)
> They will often force from the outside, even when an invasion is
> relatively simple and the outside forcing stones aren't worth much. I can
> only call that overestimating corner safety.
> But at the same time, the center is given even greater priority, because
> the playouts so often come back with a kill of would be invaders.
> Crazy Stone seems to be ahead of the other bots in this.
> My guess is that it's using simulation balancing in the playouts to
> purposely degrade attacking moves.
> Ajas' idea of biasing towards secure territory is a typical strong players
> idea. But what does "secure" mean?
> Maybe the idea Ingo brought up, to naively give corner and edge territory
> a higher weight in the early stages of the game, is more promising. It
> feels like a crutch, but when you have broken leg, a crutch is great.
>
> Stefan
>
>  ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at dvandva.org
> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at dvandva.org
> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20120109/9a96f98d/attachment.html>