It is currently Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:00 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1057 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53  Next
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1001 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 6:42 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Let's now take a more interesting example

Example 2
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . O . O O . O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]


Let's take the environment Et with t = 4

Black to play
ScoreGame(Et) = +2
ScoreGame(P + Et) = +7
Delta1 = ScoreGame(P + Et) - ScoreGame(Et) = 7 - 2 = +5

White to play
ScoreGame(Et) = -2
ScoreGame(P + Et) = +3
Delta2 = ScoreGame(P + Et) - ScoreGame(Et) = 3 - (-2) = +5

The average (Delta1 + Delta2) / 2 = 5
The expected score of this position was (8 + (3 - 0)/2)/2 = 4¾

How can we explain this difference?

The answer is quite simple : any environment, including the environment
E4 = {½|-½} + {1|1} + {1½|-1½} + {2|2} + {2½|2½} + {3|3} + {3½|-3½} + {4|4}
has its specificity. If for example you suppress the gote point {½|-½} from E4 then you have:

Black to play
ScoreGame(Et - {½|-½}) = +2½
ScoreGame(P + Et) = +6½
Delta1 = ScoreGame(P + Et - {½|-½}) - ScoreGame(Et - {½|-½}) = 6½ - 2½ = +4

White to play
ScoreGame(Et - {½|-½}) = -2½
ScoreGame(P + Et - {½|-½}) = +2½
Delta2 = ScoreGame(P + Et - {½|-½}) - ScoreGame(Et - {½|-½}) = 2½ - (-2½) = +5

The average (Delta1 + Delta2) / 2 = 4½

How can we eliminate the specificity of the environment Et?

In theory it is not quite difficult.
Instead of taking only the environment Et above, you consider all the environment made of the gote points {½|-½}, {1|1}, {1½|-1½}, {2|2}, {2½|2½} ... and you finally make on average on all these environments.
If for example you want to consider the environments at temperature 4. You consider the 8 gote points:
{½|-½}, {1|1}, {1½|-1½}, {2|2}, {2½|2½}, {3|3}, {3½|-3½}, {4|4}
and you form all possible environments made of these gote points. When you eliminate the miai points then it remains 256 possible environments by simply choosing to take or not to take each gote points.

more later

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1002 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:04 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Though my preference goes to thermography calculation, my mathematical curiosity tells me to look at a theory which will be based on the environment
Et = {½|-½} + {1|1} + {1½|-1½} + {2|2} + {2½|2½} ... + {t|-t}


Why I said I prefer thermography calculation ?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . O . O O . O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]


For the position above I showed you we can reach a good result by an average calculation on 256 environments. It is not easy of course but it is not the most important point.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------
$$ | O O a O O O . X . .
$$ | O X O X X X X X . .
$$ | O O O . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]


For a position with a ko like the position above I am convinced the average score of the position is 2⅔ but I did not manage to reach this figure by an average calculation on various environments.

As a consequence, though I like an environment like Et = {½|-½} + {1|1} + {1½|-1½} + {2|2} + {2½|2½} ... + {t|-t}, it is better to use it for practical (or confirmation) reasons but not for try and prove theoritical results.
Anyway we can claim that a result coming from an analysis in such environment is very near the best possible result isn't it?
I suspect I am in alignement with Robert on this point (but I am not quite sure).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1003 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:05 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Though my preference goes to thermography calculation, my mathematical curiosity tells me to look at a theory which will be based on the environment
Et = {½|-½} + {1|1} + {1½|-1½} + {2|2} + {2½|2½} ... + {t|-t}


Why I said I prefer thermography calculation ?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . O . O O . O . . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]


For the position above I showed you we can reach a good result by an average calculation on 256 environments. It is not easy of course but it is not the most important point.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W
$$ ---------------------
$$ | O O a O O O . X . .
$$ | O X O X X X X X . .
$$ | O X X X . . . . . .
$$ | O O O O . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . .[/go]


For a position with a ko like the position above I am convinced the average score of the position is 2⅔ but I did not manage to reach this figure by an average calculation on various environments.

As a consequence, though I like an environment like Et = {½|-½} + {1|1} + {1½|-1½} + {2|2} + {2½|2½} ... + {t|-t}, it is better to use it for practical (or confirmation) reasons but not for try and prove theoritical results.
Anyway we can claim that a result coming from an analysis in such environment is very near the best possible result isn't it?
I suspect I am in alignement with Robert on this point (but I am not quite sure).

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1004 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:20 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
There are two problems with language, here. One is using "dominate" in two senses, one in the sense of CGT, the other in the sense of von Neumann game theory. The other is using "on average" in two senses, one in the sense of CGT, the other in the sense of statistics.


I think you have found here the misunderstanding. How could we avoid such misunderstanding in the future?
Because I am far to be as expert as you on such issue I accept all wording you can propose, provided the proposal looks unambiguous.

Can you clarify, for the future, in which meaning you would like to use the words "dominate" or "average"?


Thank you. :) Here are my preferences, for your consideration.

As I said above, I would prefer not talking about statistical averages, because, AFAIK, nobody has done the relevant statistics, or is likely to do them anytime soon. So we are lelt with guesswork. Informed guesswork, perhaps, but guesswork, nonetheless.

Average territorial or area values for combinatorial games (go positions without ko fights in the game tree) do not rely upon statistics, and are fine in that context. Average gains of plays or sequences of play which are the differences between the average territorial or area values of the final positions and average values of the starting positions are also fine.

As for domination, it is possible, for instance, to say that a play by Black that moves to a final net score of Black 4 dominates a play that moves to a final net score of Black 3, but that occurs at temperature 0 or below. It is not in general possible to say that a Black play that moves to an average value of 4 dominates a Black play that moves to an average value of 3. Von Neumann game theory requires final scores to assert domination, unless one can prove otherwise. CGT domination can be proven with difference games, which, perforce occur at temperature 0. Now, there are cases where we may feel confident that one play dominates another, even if we haven't proven that, but in general I would prefer not to talk about domination except at temperature 0 or with difference games.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
BTW, does it make sense for you if I use the wording : move "a" is better than move "b" at temperature t ?


My preference would be to restrict that to cases where the miai value of move a is greater than the miai value of move b. Otherwise, we are talking about statistics, which requires guesswork.

Edit: If the statement is based upon unstated information about subsequent plays, IMO, that information should be stated. If not, then my preference is as I said.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
In such sentence can move "a" be a tenuki (I mean a move in the environment at temperature t)?


Well, a move in the environment at temperature t, gains t. So that would mean that move b gains less that t. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1005 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:09 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Bill Spight wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
There are two problems with language, here. One is using "dominate" in two senses, one in the sense of CGT, the other in the sense of von Neumann game theory. The other is using "on average" in two senses, one in the sense of CGT, the other in the sense of statistics.


I think you have found here the misunderstanding. How could we avoid such misunderstanding in the future?
Because I am far to be as expert as you on such issue I accept all wording you can propose, provided the proposal looks unambiguous.

Can you clarify, for the future, in which meaning you would like to use the words "dominate" or "average"?


Thank you. :) Here are my preferences, for your consideration.

As I said above, I would prefer not talking about statistical averages, because, AFAIK, nobody has done the relevant statistics, or is likely to do them anytime soon. So we are lelt with guesswork. Informed guesswork, perhaps, but guesswork, nonetheless.

Average territorial or area values for combinatorial games (go positions without ko fights in the game tree) do not rely upon statistics, and are fine in that context. Average gains of plays or sequences of play which are the differences between the average territorial or area values of the final positions and average values of the starting positions are also fine.

As for domination, it is possible, for instance, to say that a play by Black that moves to a final net score of Black 4 dominates a play that moves to a final net score of Black 3, but that occurs at temperature 0 or below. It is not in general possible to say that a Black play that moves to an average value of 4 dominates a Black play that moves to an average value of 3. Von Neumann game theory requires final scores to assert domination, unless one can prove otherwise. CGT domination can be proven with difference games, which, perforce occur at temperature 0. Now, there are cases where we may feel confident that one play dominates another, even if we haven't proven that, but in general I would prefer not to talk about domination except at temperature 0 or with difference games.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
BTW, does it make sense for you if I use the wording : move "a" is better than move "b" at temperature t ?


My preference would be to restrict that to cases where the miai value of move a is greater than the miai value of move b. Otherwise, we are talking about statistics, which requires guesswork.

Edit: If the statement is based upon unstated information about subsequent plays, IMO, that information should be stated. If not, then my preference is as I said.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
In such sentence can move "a" be a tenuki (I mean a move in the environment at temperature t)?


Well, a move in the environment at temperature t, gains t. So that would mean that move b gains less that t. :)


Is it a good understanding to say that if a reference to ko exist then you do not want to use the term "better than" ?
Isn'it a pity in certain position like:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Black to play
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . O b . . |
$$ | . . c a O O X X X |
$$ | O O O O X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]


Though it is common sense for me to say black "a" is "better" than black "b", obviously I agree that the miai value of black "a" is not greater than black "b".
BTW black "a" is more sente than black "b" because after black a and a white tenuki, black may follow by black c.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1006 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 11:45 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Bill Spight wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
There are two problems with language, here. One is using "dominate" in two senses, one in the sense of CGT, the other in the sense of von Neumann game theory. The other is using "on average" in two senses, one in the sense of CGT, the other in the sense of statistics.


Gérard TAILLE wrote:
I think you have found here the misunderstanding. How could we avoid such misunderstanding in the future?
Because I am far to be as expert as you on such issue I accept all wording you can propose, provided the proposal looks unambiguous.

Can you clarify, for the future, in which meaning you would like to use the words "dominate" or "average"?


Thank you. :) Here are my preferences, for your consideration.

As I said above, I would prefer not talking about statistical averages, because, AFAIK, nobody has done the relevant statistics, or is likely to do them anytime soon. So we are lelt with guesswork. Informed guesswork, perhaps, but guesswork, nonetheless.

Average territorial or area values for combinatorial games (go positions without ko fights in the game tree) do not rely upon statistics, and are fine in that context. Average gains of plays or sequences of play which are the differences between the average territorial or area values of the final positions and average values of the starting positions are also fine.

As for domination, it is possible, for instance, to say that a play by Black that moves to a final net score of Black 4 dominates a play that moves to a final net score of Black 3, but that occurs at temperature 0 or below. It is not in general possible to say that a Black play that moves to an average value of 4 dominates a Black play that moves to an average value of 3. Von Neumann game theory requires final scores to assert domination, unless one can prove otherwise. CGT domination can be proven with difference games, which, perforce occur at temperature 0. Now, there are cases where we may feel confident that one play dominates another, even if we haven't proven that, but in general I would prefer not to talk about domination except at temperature 0 or with difference games.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
BTW, does it make sense for you if I use the wording : move "a" is better than move "b" at temperature t ?


My preference would be to restrict that to cases where the miai value of move a is greater than the miai value of move b. Otherwise, we are talking about statistics, which requires guesswork.

Edit: If the statement is based upon unstated information about subsequent plays, IMO, that information should be stated. If not, then my preference is as I said.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
In such sentence can move "a" be a tenuki (I mean a move in the environment at temperature t)?


Well, a move in the environment at temperature t, gains t. So that would mean that move b gains less that t. :)


Is it a good understanding to say that if a reference to ko exist then you do not want to use the term "better than" ?
Isn'it a pity in certain position like:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Black to play
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . . . . O b . . |
$$ | . . c a O O X X X |
$$ | O O O O X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]


Though it is common sense for me to say black "a" is "better" than black "b", obviously I agree that the miai value of black "a" is not greater than black "b".
BTW black "a" is more sente than black "b" because after black a and a white tenuki, black may follow by black c.


That falls under the reliance upon subsequent play, which will be different after a and after b. My objection was to the bald statement without reference to subsequent play, which was why I made my edit. :)

If you say that Black a is better than Black b because it threatens Black c, fine. :) Or even because it produces ko threats, that is fine as well, because it implies a possible ko fight. :) But you need to spell these things out, to keep misunderstandings to a minimum.

Edit: In this case:

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B Black to play
$$ ---------------------
$$ | . . 4 3 6 O 5 . . |
$$ | . . 2 1 O O X X X |
$$ | O O O O X X X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . |
$$ ---------------------[/go]

This sequence is better than :b5: - :w1: at temperature 1, because it yields a possible ko threat for Black.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1007 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:26 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Bill Spight wrote:
As I said above, I would prefer not talking about statistical averages, because, AFAIK, nobody has done the relevant statistics, or is likely to do them anytime soon. So we are lelt with guesswork. Informed guesswork, perhaps, but guesswork, nonetheless.

Average territorial or area values for combinatorial games (go positions without ko fights in the game tree) do not rely upon statistics, and are fine in that context. Average gains of plays or sequences of play which are the differences between the average territorial or area values of the final positions and average values of the starting positions are also fine.

As for domination, it is possible, for instance, to say that a play by Black that moves to a final net score of Black 4 dominates a play that moves to a final net score of Black 3, but that occurs at temperature 0 or below. It is not in general possible to say that a Black play that moves to an average value of 4 dominates a Black play that moves to an average value of 3. Von Neumann game theory requires final scores to assert domination, unless one can prove otherwise. CGT domination can be proven with difference games, which, perforce occur at temperature 0. Now, there are cases where we may feel confident that one play dominates another, even if we haven't proven that, but in general I would prefer not to talk about domination except at temperature 0 or with difference games.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
BTW, does it make sense for you if I use the wording : move "a" is better than move "b" at temperature t ?


My preference would be to restrict that to cases where the miai value of move a is greater than the miai value of move b. Otherwise, we are talking about statistics, which requires guesswork.


Let's take an example to understand your proposal
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White to play
$$ --------------------
$$ | O O . O O b O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | X O O O O a O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]


A move at "a" is worth 4 points and a move at "b" is worth 3,5 points.
In this case do you say a move at "a" is better than a move at "b", though "b" is better than "a" at temperature 0 ?
Isn'it better to specify at which temperature "a" is "better" than "b" and here to say "a" is better than a move at "b" if temperature > 1 ?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1008 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 2:24 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
As I said above, I would prefer not talking about statistical averages, because, AFAIK, nobody has done the relevant statistics, or is likely to do them anytime soon. So we are lelt with guesswork. Informed guesswork, perhaps, but guesswork, nonetheless.

Average territorial or area values for combinatorial games (go positions without ko fights in the game tree) do not rely upon statistics, and are fine in that context. Average gains of plays or sequences of play which are the differences between the average territorial or area values of the final positions and average values of the starting positions are also fine.

As for domination, it is possible, for instance, to say that a play by Black that moves to a final net score of Black 4 dominates a play that moves to a final net score of Black 3, but that occurs at temperature 0 or below. It is not in general possible to say that a Black play that moves to an average value of 4 dominates a Black play that moves to an average value of 3. Von Neumann game theory requires final scores to assert domination, unless one can prove otherwise. CGT domination can be proven with difference games, which, perforce occur at temperature 0. Now, there are cases where we may feel confident that one play dominates another, even if we haven't proven that, but in general I would prefer not to talk about domination except at temperature 0 or with difference games.

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
BTW, does it make sense for you if I use the wording : move "a" is better than move "b" at temperature t ?


My preference would be to restrict that to cases where the miai value of move a is greater than the miai value of move b. Otherwise, we are talking about statistics, which requires guesswork.


Let's take an example to understand your proposal
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White to play
$$ --------------------
$$ | O O . O O b O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | X O O O O a O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]


A move at "a" is worth 4 points and a move at "b" is worth 3,5 points.
In this case do you say a move at "a" is better than a move at "b", though "b" is better than "a" at temperature 0 ?
Isn'it better to specify at which temperature "a" is "better" than "b" and here to say "a" is better than a move at "b" if temperature > 1 ?


If you restrict the comparison to combinatorial games, proper, and environments of combinatorial games, proper, fine. :) But as long as there is the possibility of some godawful ko at the specified temperature, t, that could allow Black to gain more than 1 - t, better to leave well enough alone.

Edited for correctness.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1009 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 2:45 pm 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Bill Spight wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:

Let's take an example to understand your proposal
Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White to play
$$ --------------------
$$ | O O . O O b O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | X O O O O a O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]


A move at "a" is worth 4 points and a move at "b" is worth 3,5 points.
In this case do you say a move at "a" is better than a move at "b", though "b" is better than "a" at temperature 0 ?
Isn'it better to specify at which temperature "a" is "better" than "b" and here to say "a" is better than a move at "b" if temperature > 1 ?


If you restrict the comparison to combinatorial games, proper, and environments of combinatorial games, proper, fine. :) But as long as there is the possibility of some godawful ko at the specified temperature, t, that could allow Black to gain more than 1 - t, better to leave well enough alone.


Concerning kos, I understand perfectly; we must be very careful before claiming a result. Agreed indeed.

In my example above there are no kos. The point is only to know if you mention a temperature when saying a move "a" is better than a move "b".

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1010 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 3:16 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
If you restrict the comparison to combinatorial games, proper, and environments of combinatorial games, proper, fine. :) But as long as there is the possibility of some godawful ko at the specified temperature, t, that could allow Black to gain more than 1 - t, better to leave well enough alone.


Concerning kos, I understand perfectly; we must be very careful before claiming a result. Agreed indeed.


:)

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
In my example above there are no kos. The point is only to know if you mention a temperature when saying a move "a" is better than a move "b".


The problem being that the phrase, "at temperature t", leaves a lot of possibilities open, when t > 0. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1011 Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:07 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
How I redefine thermography in terms of play in ideal environments

Let there be a game, G0, with possible subgames, G1, G2, .... Let the temperature of Gi be t(Gi). Let there be an environment consisting of an odd number of simple gote of the form {tj|-tj}, tj > 0, for each tj, such that tj - tj+1 = ∆, and such that the net score by alternating play for Black playing first for each t(Gi) = t(Gi)/2, and the net score by alternating play for White playing first for each t(Gi) = -t(Gi)/2; and furthermore that there are sufficient gote in the environment at each t(Gi) for all ko and superko fights at that temperature to be resolved at that temperature.

I hope that is clear and correct. :)

Edit: I see that I need to say that there needs to be an ideal environment for each game or subgame, Gi, with t(Gi) > 0, and to specify that for each tj, all games in the environment of the form, {tj|-tj}, are played before continuing to tj+1.

The problem with the net final score of G0 plus an ideal environment, E, is that it does not tell us the mast value of G0. But the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. To get the walls of the thermograph of G0 for each player we take the net results of G0 + E and subtract the net results of E.

Let me illustrate with G0 = {a||0|-2b}, a,b > 0.

Black first plays to a. The net score with alternating play is s = a - t(G0)/2. To find the Black scaffold we subtract t(G0)/2 from that to get

s = a - t(G0).

Next, White first plays to {0|-2b}.

1) Black replies to 0. The net score with alternating play is s = -t(G0)/2. To find the White scaffold we subtract -t(G0)/2 from that to get

s = 0.

The two scaffolds intersect at (s,t) = (0,a).

Because {0|-2b} is a simple gote, we know that t({0|-2b}) = b. If a < b then {a||0|-2b} is a White sente, and we are done. The mast rises vertically from (0,a). We may color it red up to t = b.

But what if a > b? Then

2) Black replies in the environment. Since {0|-2b} is a simple gote, we may add it to the simple gote of the form, {tj|-tj}, with tj = b, without affecting the final score in E with alternating play. {0|-2b} + {b|-b} = -b. So Black plays to -b, and the final score with alternating play is s = -b + t(G0)/2. To find the White scaffold we subtract -t(G0)/2 from that to get

s = -b + t(G0).

The two scaffolds intersect at (s,t) = ((a-b)/2,(a+b)/2).

G0 is a gote, and the mast rises vertically from ((a-b)/2,(a+b)/2). :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


Last edited by Bill Spight on Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1012 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:37 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Bill Spight wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
If you restrict the comparison to combinatorial games, proper, and environments of combinatorial games, proper, fine. :) But as long as there is the possibility of some godawful ko at the specified temperature, t, that could allow Black to gain more than 1 - t, better to leave well enough alone.


Concerning kos, I understand perfectly; we must be very careful before claiming a result. Agreed indeed.


:)

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
In my example above there are no kos. The point is only to know if you mention a temperature when saying a move "a" is better than a move "b".


The problem being that the phrase, "at temperature t", leaves a lot of possibilities open, when t > 0. :)


Oops I certainly do not want to write strictly move "a" is better than vove "b" at temperature t but more specifically something like for example move "a" is better than move "b" if temperature is 3 < t < 5

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White to play
$$ --------------------
$$ | O O . O O b O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | X O O O O a O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]


It is just a matter of wording Bill.

In this example theory tells us that the miai value of move "a" is greater than the miai value of move "b" (4 > 3½) but, more precisely, theory tells us that, in an ideal environment at temperature t > 1 then move "a" is better than move "b".

What is your wording to express these results?

1) simply move "a" is better than move "b" meaning only that miai value of move "a" is greater than the miai value of move "b"?
2) in an ideal environment at temperature t > 1 then move "a" is better than move "b"
3) at temperature t > 1 then move "a" is better than move "b" meanning implicitly you use an ideal environment ?
4) you never accept to say move "a" is better than move "b" because you know it is false for some non ideal environment
5) ???

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1013 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:56 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Bill Spight wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
If you restrict the comparison to combinatorial games, proper, and environments of combinatorial games, proper, fine. :) But as long as there is the possibility of some godawful ko at the specified temperature, t, that could allow Black to gain more than 1 - t, better to leave well enough alone.


Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Concerning kos, I understand perfectly; we must be very careful before claiming a result. Agreed indeed.


:)

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
In my example above there are no kos. The point is only to know if you mention a temperature when saying a move "a" is better than a move "b".


The problem being that the phrase, "at temperature t", leaves a lot of possibilities open, when t > 0. :)


Oops I certainly do not want to write strictly move "a" is better than vove "b" at temperature t but more specifically something like for example move "a" is better than move "b" if temperature is 3 < t < 5

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$W White to play
$$ --------------------
$$ | O O . O O b O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | X O O O O a O . .
$$ | X X X X X X O . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . .[/go]


It is just a matter of wording Bill.


Well, yes. But that's what we are talking about. :)

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
In this example theory tells us that the miai value of move "a" is greater than the miai value of move "b" (4 > 3½) but, more precisely, theory tells us that, in an ideal environment at temperature t > 1 then move "a" is better than move "b".

What is your wording to express these results?

1) simply move "a" is better than move "b" meaning only that miai value of move "a" is greater than the miai value of move "b"?
2) in an ideal environment at temperature t > 1 then move "a" is better than move "b"
3) at temperature t > 1 then move "a" is better than move "b" meanning implicitly you use an ideal environment ?
4) you never accept to say move "a" is better than move "b" because you know it is false for some non ideal environment
5) ???


It isn't just that I know it is false for some non ideal environment, it is that that fact is where misunderstandings have occurred in the past. So some additional verbal modification would be a good idea. Such as, "better thermographically" at some temperature or temperatures, or "better with no ko fight" at some temperature or temperatures. Personally, my choice would be to say, "gains more thermographically" in some temperature range, since that is where you see the difference in the wall of the thermograph. :)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1014 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:58 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Bill Spight wrote:
How I redefine thermography in terms of play in ideal environments

Let there be a game, G0, with possible subgames, G1, G2, .... Let the temperature of Gi be t(Gi). Let there be an environment consisting of an odd number of simple gote of the form {tj|-tj}, tj > 0, for each tj, such that tj - tj+1 = ∆, and such that the net score by alternating play for Black playing first for each t(Gi) = t(Gi)/2, and the net score by alternating play for White playing first for each t(Gi) = -t(Gi)/2; and furthermore that there are sufficient gote in the environment at each t(Gi) for all ko and superko fights at that temperature to be resolved at that temperature.

I hope that is clear and correct. :)


I understand what you mean Bill but for a theorical point of view it is quite unclear.
Basically you take a game G0, with possible subgames, G1, G2 you put this game in an ideal environment and then you find various results concerning the game G0, including in particular the value (s,t) for the bottom of the mast. That's fine but in your definition of your ideal environment you use the temperature t(Gi) of Gi which is not known at the beginning of the process.
Can the definition of the ideal environment depends on still unkonwn characteristics of the game G0 and its subgames?
Why not define the ideal environment without any reference to the game studied?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1015 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 4:33 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
How I redefine thermography in terms of play in ideal environments

Let there be a game, G0, with possible subgames, G1, G2, .... Let the temperature of Gi be t(Gi). Let there be an environment consisting of an odd number of simple gote of the form {tj|-tj}, tj > 0, for each tj, such that tj - tj+1 = ∆, and such that the net score by alternating play for Black playing first for each t(Gi) = t(Gi)/2, and the net score by alternating play for White playing first for each t(Gi) = -t(Gi)/2; and furthermore that there are sufficient gote in the environment at each t(Gi) for all ko and superko fights at that temperature to be resolved at that temperature.

I hope that is clear and correct. :)


I understand what you mean Bill but for a theorical point of view it is quite unclear.
Basically you take a game G0, with possible subgames, G1, G2 you put this game in an ideal environment and then you find various results concerning the game G0, including in particular the value (s,t) for the bottom of the mast. That's fine but in your definition of your ideal environment you use the temperature t(Gi) of Gi which is not known at the beginning of the process.
Can the definition of the ideal environment depends on still unkonwn characteristics of the game G0 and its subgames?
Why not define the ideal environment without any reference to the game studied?


Oh, I did. It is just that the environments need to be ideal at the temperatures of the game and its subgames. The fact that we do not necessarily know those temperatures is the point. We are trying to find them.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1016 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 5:57 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Bill Spight wrote:
It isn't just that I know it is false for some non ideal environment, it is that that fact is where misunderstandings have occurred in the past. So some additional verbal modification would be a good idea. Such as, "better thermographically" at some temperature or temperatures, or "better with no ko fight" at some temperature or temperatures. Personally, my choice would be to say, "gains more thermographically" in some temperature range, since that is where you see the difference in the wall of the thermograph. :)


When you use the word "thermographically" obviously I assume you use implicitly an "ideal environment" but, with this only word "thermographically" do you assume also implicitly there no ko fight?

BTW, considering a position with a potential ko fight, do you consider there is an interest of playing the game in an ideal environment?

Click Here To Show Diagram Code
[go]$$B
$$ --------------
$$ | . . . . X . .
$$ | . . O O X . .
$$ | . . O X X . .
$$ | . O O X . . .
$$ | . O X X . . .
$$ | . X . . . . .
$$ | . X . . . . .
$$ | X X . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . , . . .[/go]


IOW, in the position above, does it make sense to try to play the position by assuming an ideal environment, or do you consider there are no interest?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1017 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 6:35 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Bill Spight wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
How I redefine thermography in terms of play in ideal environments

Let there be a game, G0, with possible subgames, G1, G2, .... Let the temperature of Gi be t(Gi). Let there be an environment consisting of an odd number of simple gote of the form {tj|-tj}, tj > 0, for each tj, such that tj - tj+1 = ∆, and such that the net score by alternating play for Black playing first for each t(Gi) = t(Gi)/2, and the net score by alternating play for White playing first for each t(Gi) = -t(Gi)/2; and furthermore that there are sufficient gote in the environment at each t(Gi) for all ko and superko fights at that temperature to be resolved at that temperature.

I hope that is clear and correct. :)


I understand what you mean Bill but for a theorical point of view it is quite unclear.
Basically you take a game G0, with possible subgames, G1, G2 you put this game in an ideal environment and then you find various results concerning the game G0, including in particular the value (s,t) for the bottom of the mast. That's fine but in your definition of your ideal environment you use the temperature t(Gi) of Gi which is not known at the beginning of the process.
Can the definition of the ideal environment depends on still unkonwn characteristics of the game G0 and its subgames?
Why not define the ideal environment without any reference to the game studied?


Oh, I did. It is just that the environments need to be ideal at the temperatures of the game and its subgames. The fact that we do not necessarily know those temperatures is the point. We are trying to find them.


Just for fun, with the game {a||0|-2b} with a > b, the simplest "ideal environment" built for this game seems to be {g0|-g0} + {g1|-g1} with
g0 = (a+b)/2 and g1 = b/2

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1018 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:26 am 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Just for fun, with the game {a||0|-2b} with a > b, the simplest "ideal environment" built for this game seems to be {g0|-g0} + {g1|-g1} with
g0 = (a+b)/2 and g1 = b/2


It's a bit more complicated than that. :)

Edited below for correctness.

Let's take the game, {9||0|-4}, with t = (9+2)/2 = 5½. and t({0|-4}) = 2.

The simplest ideal environment that meets all the requirements is this:

{5½|-5½}, {5¼|-5¼}, {5|-5} . . . , {2|-2}, {1¾|-1¾}, {1½|-1½} . . . , {¼|-¼}.

This environment will also work.

{5½|-5½}, {5¼|-5¼}, {4¾|-4¾}, {4¼|-4¼} . . . , {2¼|-2¼}, {2|-2}, {1¾|-1¾}, {1¼|-1¼}, {¾|-¾}, {¼|-¼}.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.


Last edited by Bill Spight on Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1019 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 10:30 am 
Lives in sente

Posts: 821
Liked others: 14
Was liked: 37
Rank: 1er dan
Bill Spight wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Just for fun, with the game {a||0|-2b} with a > b, the simplest "ideal environment" built for this game seems to be {g0|-g0} + {g1|-g1} with
g0 = (a+b)/2 and g1 = b/2


It's a bit more complicated than that. :)

Let's take the game, {9||0|-4}, with t = (9+4)/2 = 6½. and t({0|-4}) = 2.

The simplest ideal environment that meets all the requirements is this:

{6½|-6½}, {6¼|-6¼}, {6|-6} . . . , {2|-2}, {1¾|-1¾}, {1½|-1½} . . . , {¼|-¼}.

This environment will also work.

{6½|-6½}, {6¼|-6¼}, {5¾|-5¾}, {5¼|-5¼} . . . , {2¼|-2¼}, {2|-2}, {1¾|-1¾}, {1¼|-1¼}, {¾|-¾}, {¼|-¼}.


Oops, I made a mistake in my equations and I have to correct my formulas. then:
g0 = (a+3b)/4 and g1 = b/2

Now let's take your example G0 = {9||0|-4} = {9|G1}
Firstly I think the temperature of G0 is 5½ and (not 6½).
Secondly, by applying my formula, why the environment E = {3¾|-3¾} + {1|-1} is not ideal for the game G0?
When t = 5½ (G0 temperature) then the value of a play in the environment is 3¾ - 1 = 2¾ = 5½ / 2
and when the temperature of the environment drops to 2 (G1 temperature) then the value of a play in the environment is 1 = 2/2


Last edited by Gérard TAILLE on Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: This 'n' that
Post #1020 Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:17 pm 
Honinbo

Posts: 10905
Liked others: 3651
Was liked: 3368
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Bill Spight wrote:
Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Just for fun, with the game {a||0|-2b} with a > b, the simplest "ideal environment" built for this game seems to be {g0|-g0} + {g1|-g1} with
g0 = (a+b)/2 and g1 = b/2


It's a bit more complicated than that. :)

Let's take the game, {9||0|-4}, with t = (9+4)/2 = 6½. and t({0|-4}) = 2.

The simplest ideal environment that meets all the requirements is this:

{6½|-6½}, {6¼|-6¼}, {6|-6} . . . , {2|-2}, {1¾|-1¾}, {1½|-1½} . . . , {¼|-¼}.

This environment will also work.

{6½|-6½}, {6¼|-6¼}, {5¾|-5¾}, {5¼|-5¼} . . . , {2¼|-2¼}, {2|-2}, {1¾|-1¾}, {1¼|-1¼}, {¾|-¾}, {¼|-¼}.


Oops, I made a mistake in my equations and I have to correct my formulas. then:
g0 = (a+3b)/4 and g1 = b/2

Now let's take your example G0 = {9||0|-4} = {9|G1}
Firstly I think the temperature of G0 is 5½ and (not 6½).


Yes. How silly of me. ;) I have corrected the above note. :)

Gérard TAILLE wrote:
Secondly, by applying my formula, why the environment E = {3¾|-3¾} + {1|1} is not ideal for the game G0?


First, it is not hot enough. 3¾ < 5½.
Second, it does not include {2|-2}.
Third, it is not ideal. 3¾ - 1 = 2¾, not 3¾/2 = 1⅞.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1057 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group