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

[Rémi Coulom]

Mark Boon wrote:
> 
> On 10-aug-2006, at 8:00, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I see, you look at liberties of friendly neighbours as well. That can't 
> work in all cases either. For example:
> 
> OOOO.O
> OXXX..
> OXOXXO
> OXOOXO
> OXX.XO
> OOOOOO
> 
> Can X be caught as a 2-liberty problem or not? I say it can, the way you 
> described it to me it can't

You are right again. I also exclude from the class of 2-liberty problem 
situations where the defender is contiguous to a string in atari. This 
way I avoid problems with triple ko, without having to limit search depth.

Rémi