[computer-go] Caching of local search in NeuroGo?

[Mark Boon]

On 10-aug-2006, at 4:52, Rémi Coulom wrote:

> If you consider that a 2-liberty problem is a problem that can be  
> solved without the defender ever having more than two liberties  
> during the search, then, with the method of Markus, there is no  
> risk of getting it wrong. If one move has less adjacent point than  
> the other, then either the other is an immediate killer if it has  
> two liberties, or it is mandatory to play there to avoid stopping  
> the search if it has three or more.

That is clearly false, there's considerable risk getting it wrong by  
this description. What if a stone can get away by playing on a point  
that has no vacant points adjacent to it, but a friendly group with a  
lot of liberties? You may still be able to catch the stone by  
preventing the connection, but your heuristic will think the stone  
can't be caught.

The problem with these kind of short-cuts is that there's always a  
case where it doesn't work, even after you think you covered every  
possible case.

Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20060810/a3c941e4/attachment.htm