Re: [gnugo-devel] Joseki variations question

[SP LEE]

I think this question reveals the complicated aspects of Go. The stones
could be dead, alive, or anywhere between dead and alive. The last
possibility usually makes go players a lot of headache, because it will
introduce a lot of variations. A good go player will reduce variations when
he/she is leading, while add more variations when he/she is behind. However,
in the beginning of the game, it's difficult to judge who is leading. Even
so I think it's good to reduce variations for GNUGO, which will make the
later thinking easier.

So for this Joseki I think the question is not if the stones are going to
die, but it's how easy they are going to live, or expand to larger
territory.

SP Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "Smith, Christopher" <address@hidden>
To: "GNU Go development" <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: RE: [gnugo-devel] Joseki variations question


> This is an interesting question, it appears that GnuGo should somehow help
those stones- but I am not sure if that is actually needed.
>
> If black played R2, Q2 would be a good follow-up. If Q6, R6 and then so
on. It would obviously get messy in the battle for the corner but I am not
sure if it is _guaranteed_ to die. But then again I am not an exceptionally
strong player.
>
> Is there a way to just 'start' GnuGo from a position like this, but as the
other color and see what GnuGo would think? Perhaps there is a great attack
we know of and just the defense to it isn't in our DB.
>
> -Chris Smith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evan Berggren Daniel [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thu 3/27/2003 9:36 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Cc:
> Subject: [gnugo-devel] Joseki variations question
>
>
>
> I noticed a problem in the game gnugo-3.3.17-ylamaki-200303262305.sgf.  At
> move 9, the position is:
>
>    A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T
> 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
> 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
> 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
> 16 . . . X . . . . . + . . . . . X . . . 16
> 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
> 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
> 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
> 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
> 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
> 10 . . . + . . . . . + . . . . . + . . . 10
> 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
> 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
> 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
> 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
> 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . 5
> 4 . . . X . . . . . + O . . . X O . . . 4
> 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X O . . 3
> 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
> 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
>    A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T
>
>
> Clearly, a play in the lower right is in order.  However, Gnu Go plays
> tenuki.  To what degree do we wish to fix problems in variations like this
> with changes to the joseki database?  I think it should be obvious to Gnu
> Go that the lower right is the place to play, and there aren't any complex
> considerations that it doesn't understand.  Clearly, complex or subtle
> variations that aren't quite joseki need to be in the database, but there
> is also value (I believe) to keeping the database small and uncluttered.
>
> What do other people think about this?
>
> Evan Daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnugo-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> _______________________________________________
> gnugo-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel
>