[computer-go] Re: Explanation to MoGo paper wanted.

[Yamato]

>There is one other issue I have seen  that is similar.  Sometimes
>Lazarus will play a move that doesn't hurt nor help it's position.
>It's not a wasted move because the opponent must respond or else lose.
>An example is a simple self-atari which itself is a direct threat.   The
>opponent is forced to respond, so there is no reason not to try for the
>cheap shot in his territory, but in the grand scheme of things this move
>is a distraction and if you could remove them from the tree it would
>help the program focus on what is really important.    However,  it
>sometimes pays to try moves like these.   When I "fixed" this problem in
>Lazarus, it started winning less against weaker programs simply because
>they sometimes fail to defend.    

And is that version stronger against higher-level programs?
Losing against weaker programs might be the cost that we should pay
temporarily.
I think one of the problems is in testing. Currently we have almost
no way to judge whether a improvement is good or bad, other than
playing a lot of games against GNU Go. It takes very long time and
seems inefficient. Moreover, even it may not be a very good method.
GNU Go often cannot respond to an obvious bad move correctly, so
pruning such moves decrease the winning rate.

--
Yamato