[Computer-go] Mastering the Game of Go with Deep Neural Networks and Tree Search
jasiek at snafu.de
Tue Feb 2 00:35:14 PST 2016
On 01.02.2016 23:01, Brian Cloutier wrote:> I had to search a lot of
papers on MCTS which
> mentioned "terminal states" before finding one which defined them.
> [...] they defined it as a position where there are no more legal
On 01.02.2016 23:15, Brian Sheppard wrote:
> You play until neither player wishes to make a move. The players
> are willing to move on any point that is not self-atari, and they
> are willing to make self-atari plays if capture would result in a
> Nakade (http://senseis.xmp.net/?Nakade)
Defining "terminal state" as no more legal moves is probably
inappropriate. The phrase "willing to move" is undefined, unless they
exactly define it as "to make self-atari plays iff capture would result
in a Nakade". This requires a proof that this is the only exception.
Where is that proof? It also requires a definition of nakade. Where is
In my book Capturing Races 1, I have outlined a definition of
"[semeai-]eye" and, in Life and Death Problems 1, of "nakade". Such are
more complicated by far than naive descriptions online suggest. In
particular, such outlined definitions depend on the still undefined
"essential [string]", "seki" [sic, undefined as a strategic object
because the Japanese 2003 Rules' definition does not distinguish good
from bad strategy!] and "lake" [connected part of the potential
eyespace..., which in turn is still undefined as a strategic object].
They also depend on "ko", but at least this I have defined:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/ko.pdf Needless to say, determining the
objects that are essential, seki, lake, ko is a hard task in itself.
So where is the mathematically strict "definition" of nakade? Has
anybody proceeded beyond my definition attempts? I suspect the standard
problem of research again: definition by reference to a different paper
with an ambiguous description. If ambiguous terms are presumed for
pragmatic reasons, this must be stated! My mentioned terms are ambiguous
but less so than every other attempt - or where are the better attempts?
More information about the Computer-go