[computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

[Heikki Levanto]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:15:36PM -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
> >What you are trying to do is more in the category of opponent
> >modeling.    You want to optimize for the case that you might
> >occasionally salvage a game against an opponent that is much weaker than
> >you but is beating you anyway.
> 
> No, absolutely not. The idea of following the 0.5 pt loss is always
> true, even if the opponent is of comparable strength.

I agree with this, 100%

> >strength level.  If your program KNOWS it is losing by 0.5 points,  then
> >it's reasonable to expect that your opponent does too, especially given
> >the fact that he just outplayed you.
> 
> I think you are too much of "chess player" :-)
> The fact that he is 0.5  point in the lead does not imply he is
> (much) stronger. Any player, in particular a human player, is capable
> of the making a mistake. So it is important to stay on the 'small'
> losing line. That might a difference to chess, where there is no
> 'small' loss.

Even the top professionals make the occasional small mistake in the end game.
I expect our programs will be playing (much) lesser opponents for the
foreseeable future, and thus have a good hope of seeing slightly suboptimal
play in the end game.

> >So at best you hope your opponent will make a stupid mistake in an
> >obviously lost position for you.
> 
> No, the opposite. Not a stupid mistake; I am hoping for the subtle
> mistake. But you throw that opportunity away If you play "desparate"
> moves just because you think you will lose the game by 0.5 points.

Indeed! And there still is a (non-zero) risk that the program is estimating
wrong, and actually has a small lead. Playing tight will preserve that, with
a chance of improving it a bit, whereas playing "desperate" moves will throw
it all away.


Of course, if a program knows it is going to loose, it might as well
resign.

-H

-- 
Heikki Levanto   "In Murphy We Turst"     heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk