Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_15.2

[Daniel Bump]

> I will probably try to play around with this (but won't have time until
> two weeks from now). The first thing that comes to my mind is that I do
> not like the direct proportionality of the strategic effect to the
> effective dragon size. Direct proportionality seems to assume that
> attacking a group increases the probability to capture it. In reality,
> you cannot capture it, buy you benefit from keeping your opponent busy
> defending, while you are taking useful territory/influence with the
> attacking moves. This effect is about the same for all group sizes, unless
> the group is so small that the opponent can easily sacrifice it. So maybe
> upper bounds for the strategic effects would make sense? I'd imagine
> s.th. like 10 pts for a weak genus 1 group with some space to run. Also,
> I guess that the strategic effect for alive (but not strongly alive)
> groups is overvalued, but here I might be wrong.

This approach (capping the size of the strategic effect) might
make sense. Inge has been arguing for a long time against the 
strategic effect but to Gunnar and myself it seems important.
However as Inge and Trevor both point out there are examples where
it causes problems, and allowing it but capping its size might be
a good idea.

Dan