Now, it is a fact that more people in the world know about Go than

CGT. So it would make sense to use the language of Go to explain

difficult concepts in CGT. But the authors of course (being

mathematicians) have chosen to use the arcane language of CGT to

explain its relation to Go. It is no surprise that mathematicians

prefer a cryptic but exact language to an intuitive but fuzzy one. Yet

I have a suspicion that there could be a better way to explain these

ideas, and this is my attempt. The target audience is people who know

a little bit about Go and a little bit about game search algorithms.

Motivation

A Go game usually revolves around several semi-independent regions on

the 19x19 board. This is unlike chess, where a move in one corner of

the board usually effects the whole game. Thus typical chess programs

perform a (optimized) search on a tree of all possible legal

moves. Such a tree contains around b^n moves to analyze if (i) we want

to look ahead n moves and (ii) the number of legal moves at each turn

(the branching factor) is around b. The optimizations bring the actual

analyzed number to around b^(n/2). For chess, the branching factor is

around 10-20, and 12-15 move look-aheads are routinely performed by

modern programs.

Go starts with a 360+ branching factor. Thus searching a single tree

of all legal moves is out of the question. But note what happens if we

can successfully split the game into k independent regions. Each

region will have b/k legal moves on average. An optimized n move

look-ahead search will need to analyze (b/k)^(n/2) moves for each

region. If we could combine the results of these searches and compute

the best move in constant time using CGT, we will only need to search

k * (b/k)^(n/2) which is much smaller than b^(n/2). For example if b =

100 and we want a 10 move look ahead, the full search will cost us 10

billion moves (about three hours at a million moves per second). If we

could split the board into 5 equally sized independent games, search

each one 10 moves ahead and combine the results, the search would cost

16 million moves (16 seconds at a million moves per second).

Of course it is rarely possible to isolate one part of a Go board from

the rest. The examples in Mathematical Go exclusively deal with

completely isolated regions surrounded by unconditionally live

groups. Such a region has no effect on the rest of the board except

for the timing of the moves. However with further progress, it may be

possible to apply the theory to weakly interacting regions. Spatially

dividing the game seems to me the only option if search is going to

have any chance.

An Empty Corridor

So let's try to understand what CGT is trying to tell us. Here is an

isolated region (assuming the surrounding white and black stones are

alive).

$$ Empty corridor

$$ O X X X X

$$ O a b c X

$$ O X X X X

The search tree is simple. If it is white's turn, he'll move into (a)

and black will defend at (b) to get 1 point of territory, if it is

black's turn, he'll move into (a) and get 2 points of territory. If

this was the only active region left on the board this is all the

analysis we would need.

However we should consider potential moves in other parts of the

board. If black has a better prospect elsewhere, he may choose not to

defend his corridor, in effect "passing" in this region of the

board. The Go term for such "playing elsewhere" is tenuki. When would

black do such a thing? If it is black's turn we said he can grab 2

points. If he plays tenuki, and white attacks at (a) black can take at

most 1. If he plays tenuki twice, white may not give him any points in

the corridor. So every tenuki costs black one point up to two

points. Black will choose to play elsewhere if such a move is worth

more than a point. He may be indifferent if such a move is worth one

point.

To decide whether to spend our next move in this region rather than

some other part of the board, does the location or the exact shape of

the corridor matter? Obviously not. Does the size of the corridor

matter? We will see that sometimes it does. What is the exact

information we need to make the correct decision? All we need is the

analysis from the last paragraph, i.e. black can play tenuki twice at

a regional cost of one point each. I'd like to write this out as

[1,1,0]. CGT represents it using the number 1+1/4.

The first big idea of the CGT is that we can represent these isolated

regions with such small bits of information and mostly forget about

the details. The second big idea is to use these small bits of

information to calculate (i) which region contains the best move, and

(ii) who is winning by how much assuming ideal play. To illustrate how

this calculation works, we need an example with more than one region.

Lots of empty corridors

Let's assume that our endgame consists of n copies of the above

corridor. If it is white's turn, he can attack the first corridor,

black can defend and get one point, white can attack the second

corridor, etc. and black will have n points at the end.

$$w Bad black strategy

$$ O X X X X

$$ O 1 2 . X

$$ O X X X X

$$ O 1 2 . X

$$ O X X X X

But this is not the best possible strategy. Black may choose not to

defend where white attacks and instead may block another corridor to

get 2 points. In fact he can get an extra point using this strategy

if there are four corridors:

$$w Better black strategy

$$ O X X X X _ _ O X X X X

$$ O 1 5 . X _ _ O 1 3 . X

$$ O X X X X _ _ O X X X X

$$ O 2 . . X _ _ O 2 . . X

$$ O X X X X _ _ O X X X X

$$ O 3 6 . X _ _ O 4 . . X

$$ O X X X X _ _ O X X X X

$$ O 4 . . X _ _ O 5 6 . X

$$ O X X X X _ _ O X X X X

Verifying the following is left as an exercise for the reader:

* The ideal strategy for both black and white is to play at the edge

of the longest remaining corridor.

* If white attacks first, playing the ideal strategy, black can get

one point for each corridor plus an extra point for every fourth

corridor.

* If black defends first, he gets two points for the first corridor

and refer to the previous rule for the other corridors.

Now the CGT value of 1+1/4 for this position may make a little more

sense. If you add up the values of all the corridors you get a

fractional number of points. The player on move will be able to round

the fraction in his favor.

Draft...

Here is a slightly different example:

This time if it is black's turn, he can get 4 points (one for the prisoner). If he plays elsewhere, and white attacks at "a", he can get 3 points. If he tenukis twice and white keeps attacking, he can still get 2 points. But if he tenukis a third time, white will save his stone and black will get zero points. So the tenuki costs for black this time are [1,1,2]. CGT represents this situation with an infinitesimal (something that is greater in absolute value than zero yet smaller than any positive real number) called "double up star" (written "^^*").

A third example to introduce another member of the CGT menagerie:

In the top corridor black will get 4, 3, 0 points respectively if he tenukis 0, 1, and 2 times. In my notation this is [1,3]. CGT calls it TINY-1. The bottom corridor gives black 5, 4, 0 points to black if he tenukis 0, 1, and 2 times. The costs of the tenukis are [1,4]. According to CGT, this is TINY-2. Tinies are things that are smaller than infinitesimals yet still larger than zero. Opposite of a tiny is called a miny.

So the first big idea of the CGT is that we can represent these isolated regions with small amounts of information and mostly forget about the details. The second big idea is to use these small bits of information to calculate (i) who is winning by how much, and (ii) in which region is the best move.

$$ X O O O O O

$$ X a b c d O

$$ X O O O O O

$$ X e f O . .

$$ X O O O . .

2+1/8, 1/2

wa,be - 3

we,ba,wb - 3

ba,we,bb,wc - 2

be,wa - 3

if g: be,wf,ba,wb - 3 (2+1/8,1+1/2)

ba,wb,be,wf - 3

Full post... Related link