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

[Rémi Coulom]

Mark Boon wrote:
> 
> 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.

Yes, you are right. In fact, I also count the liberties obtained by 
connecting to frindly strings in my code. That's why I added the other 
comment in my message. I did not remember everything very well because I 
wrote that code long ago. Sorry for the confusion.

I am pretty sure I do not miss any good move, because I tested my code 
on a huge number of randomly generated positions.

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/