[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [gnugo-devel] inconsistnies in owl_attack and owl_does_attack

From: Evan Berggren Daniel
Subject: Re: [gnugo-devel] inconsistnies in owl_attack and owl_does_attack
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 16:44:15 -0400 (EDT)

> > Another option that doesn't fix anything but will probably improve play
> > would be to run owl_does_attack on all the top moves proposed, and make
> > sure that all attacks are being counted in the final valuation.  This way,
> > if, say, the third ranked move has an attack that isn't found, with a high
> > enough value to be worthwhile, gnugo will find it and play that move
> > instead of the previously ranked top move.
> This sounds very unlikely to be effective. If a dragon is thought to
> be alive, a missing owl attack move is usually not valued very high,
> if evaluated at all.

Really?  what we're seeing in the matcher_check results is that there are
moves that are attacks that owl_attack fails to find, that are evaluated
highly enough to be played even though they are not noticed as
owl_attacks.  This is where the inconsistencies come from.  That suggests
there might be some for the ones valued second or third that should be
valued highly.  Maybe I'm missing something, but that's what I think the
results mean.  Doesn't mean it's the right way to go, but we should either
look closer or just try it and see.


Evan Daniel

reply via email to

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