[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gnugo-devel] Patch: New move generator

From: Gunnar Farneback
Subject: Re: [gnugo-devel] Patch: New move generator
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 15:52:34 +0200
User-agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.3 Emacs/20.7 (sparc-sun-solaris2.7) (with unibyte mode)

Inge wrote:
> I don't agree with you.  If your reasoning was correct, then
> estimate_strategical_value() wouldn't be needed at all. Currently,
> estimate_territorial_value() gives a value to capturing the worm or
> dragon itself.  Then, later, estimate_strategical_value() looks at the
> effects of this capture and sees what groups are defended or attacked
> by the effect that the worm/dragon disappears.

It does not. estimate_strategical_value() tries to determine to what
extent other groups have been weakened or strengthened by the move. If
other groups are actually captured or saved by the move they are
handled separately in estimate_territorial_value().

> Your new approach here above is of course also feasible, but in that
> case we would have to rewrite a significant part of the move valuation.

Yes, but I'm fairly certain that's necessary. There are at least five
regression failures which are untractable without such a change.

> And btw, the example I was using is incident 165 in strategy.tst (test
> 17). After the pass, i think it still underevaluates one branch of the
> effects of N11, but it is much better. It still doesn't pass the test,
> but that is due to the erroneous calculation of strategic effect,
> which I also intend to attack soon.

This test case looks ideal for your combinations module. I still don't
believe in the move valuation changes though.

> I would be interested in hearing your ideas here.

When computing the influence effects of a move on the territory (as
defined in the influence code) captured and saved stones should be
included in this measure. That's not the case currently and leads to
various difficulties.

> Usually, I do, but yesterday it was late when I sent in the patch and
> i wanted to go to bed.  I just convinced myself that the patch didn't
> destroy anything.

You didn't run the regressions overnight by chance? I'm still
interested in seeing what happens on the full set. I've just started a
run on third_batch for your patch.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]