[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: current development

From: Timothy Y. Chow
Subject: Re: current development
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 17:08:26 -0500 (EST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019, Joseph Heled wrote:
Agreed, but from a practical point of view, not caring about non-reachable positions and positions with a very low probability is good enough for a playing-bot.

We probably shouldn't clutter the mailing list further with this debate, but *from a practical point of view*, what I most want from a bot is to be able to analyze decisions that come up when I play humans and that are not obvious. These positions include "propositions"---artificially constructed positions that are fun to play. Also, in my playing group, when we play for fun, we often intentionally steer the game into crazy backgames. These might be "low probability" by some definitions, but they aren't low probability in real life.

Here's a true story about one of my friends. After he purchased XG, the *very first position* he entered into XG and asked for its opinion about was a "wild" position that had arisen in one of our fun games. He was disappointed that XG had no clue about the position (as was evident by its wildly swinging verdicts when one changed the evaluation level).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]