Right, that is currently possible, but one has to be a bit careful about compensating for territory loses for playing out such moves (i.e., one has to play out the boring moves to save a group, and play out pathological opponent moves that feed dead stones, if needed to compensate for the boring moves reducing one’s own territory).
However, I think that it is actually a much bigger problem that such a workaround is enabled in the first place (by allowing score estimation on hypothetical future positions). A player could also use it to judge the resulting positions of several candidate (or even more exhaustively many) moves that they are considering. This is essentially getting direct assistance on what to play for the next move, and the only saving grace is that the score estimator is too terrible for many to effectively abuse it this way.
but black and white colors separated.
Black only painted when score is equal or white ahead.
White only painted when score is equal or black ahead.
1)black up side increases
2)white bottom side increases
3)black right side increases
4)white left side increases
5)black bottom side increases
6)white up side increases
7)black left side increases
8)white right side increases
b+1
2 vs 1 stone is too much, b+49
but it looks cool
somebody, give link to game and say number of move. I will have to click it manually
but all dead group will be like alive. User supposed to erase them himself.
Ohh I see. The gif was different random seeds. Yeah I don’t see a reason to randomize. In fact I don’t see why direction matters at all. I think one could extend in all directions at the same time. If white and black “fill” a square at the same time, it ends up neutral in the final count.
This is functionally equivalent to getting the closest color (by manhattan distance) I think.
you imagine slow line drawing tool while I imagine fast line drawing tool
repaint all connected stones in 1 click - why not?
my game:
in original game black+24 , but my score balance fixer is too strong, so b+1 now.
I would call my tool as “influence simulator” , there is difference between territory and influence.
OGS don’t have tool that clearly drawing influence, but I have it now.
actually looks much more helpful than current old crazy estimator
it clearly shows what it counts and it counts b+1 .
so if we imagine that all these dead white groups are additional points for black, it becomes perfectly clear that black is ahead.
Empty not painted regions is bad idea I think. Without it everything is much more clear
It is weak/inaccurate enough to be mostly useless at this stage of the game. This is good.
What I don’t like a about it:
Assigning such a large chunk of the upper side to white is unexpected for me. Given the distribution of stones on the upper side I would expect that the division line between black and white is more to the right, or that the middle of the upper side is marked neutral.
This is not a problem, because of the separate problem that the score estimate always counts area
(although of course one shouldn’t give one player dame or other valuable moves while the other plays unnecessary moves. Just pass or fill in territory)
If this is supposed to be a Voronoi diagram, then why is M16 (the middle Hoshi point on the upper side) painted white in this diagram? Clearly the closest stone is F16 which is black.
How does your algorithm handle ties?
I think generating some sort of discrete Voronoi diagram is a neat idea, but I’m a bit confused by these sample diagrams.
I think if you look at the algorithm, you will see why it’s not as you expect (i.e. not totally reflective of the closest color) around the edges. Weak score estimator and Japanese rules - #38 by stone.defender for a description. The algorithm I suggested above (flood in all directions at the same time) should fix that.
So has anyone here actually produced a tangible idea of what a SE should do?
Jumping into algorithms when you haven’t decided on the fundamentals seems a bit premature.
Uses I can imagine:
Help players make strategic decisions based on sound score estimates.
Help players estimate the score by themselves.
Help players visualize an easier-to-understand representation of the board.
By what means?
Lead indicator: Use a strong engine to give accurate but imprecise information “W leads” or “The game is about even”.
Territory counter: Allows drawing rectangles on the board, tallies the sizes of each, per color.
Territory visualizer: show engine’s prediction of where territory will probably be.
Et cetera.
p.s.: Feature request: Flavor text / personalities for lead indicators: “My grandma could win this.”, “You dun’ goof’d.”, “This match is oddly even.”
I can’t think of a reason to maintain a broken visualizer. Until very recently, there simply wasn’t anything else, but now there is. Either give the best visualization available, or don’t give any. To deliberately give people errors to sort out seems quite nonsensical.
If you invite someone over, you wouldn’t necessarily give them driving instructions according to maps from the 1920, either. “But they’d know the general direction and well, here and there they’d have to adjust to the actual road situation. It trains them to think on their feet.”
What I’m saying is you need some kind of visualization in order to help with counting (unless you have a very strong estimator that simply knows the score)
Not adding a visualization is like giving them no directions at all. “The destination is located 2.3 km southeast, see you soon!”
