[computer-go] New version of Crazy Stone

[Don Dailey]

On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 16:51 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Don Dailey <drd at mit.edu> wrote:
> > So if you wanted to build a 32 man endgame database it would be nice
> > if you could do it 1 bit per position.   But you could only represent 2
> > states.   Which 2 states would you keep?   Would you play to win, or
> > NOT to lose?
> 
> Does it matter? If this hypothetical database is complete, couldn't
> you just infer 'the other bit' by using symmetry and colour reversal?

Not unless you doubled the database size.  I'm assuming that the
database is 1 bit per "configuration" - for instance only giving a
result for WHITE to MOVE.   

So a better rephrasing of the question: if you had a database that
contained either win or loss information for the color your computer
is playing - which would you choose?

For GO with chinese scoring and fractional komi you don't have to
worry about draw positions as Steve points out.   So the question
is more appropriate for a chess program.

I think with either database, you could probably still approach (but not
reach) perfect play with the clever use of null move tricks and deep
searches.   Because tempo is so critical in chess, a simple thing might
be to find positions that don't lose even if you play a null move.  This
might work early in the game.  At the very least you could make a tree
search much more focused.     


> Erik