Generator

A rule that is not optimal, and cannot be far wrong

Every line of play in the experiment as one point: the largest temperature on the board across, and what playing hottest-first cost against optimal play up. The diagonal is the bound the theory proves. Nothing gold sits above it; the magenta series is the same rule with its ordering reversed, and it sits above the line often — which is what makes the bound a claim rather than a description.

6 essays call greedy-margin. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Changing this generator changes every one of these figures.

How much changes hands, against how much is at stake. Two ways of choosing where to move, run against optimal play over every board from a pool of three components. Biggest-first takes the component where the most changes hands, which is the count in every endgame book; hottest-first takes the one with the highest temperature. They disagree on most of these boards, the count costs points more often, and — the difference that matters — the count sometimes loses more than the largest temperature on the board, which is the bound the theory's rule is guaranteed to keep.

Temperature

Big is not the same as hot

A player sizes a move by how much changes hands when it is played, which is the number in every endgame book. The theory sizes it by temperature. On a plain switch the two agree exactly, so nothing shows; on a move with a follow-up they come apart, and the count gives up more than the guarantee the theory's rule carries.

The endgame, accounted for. Several independent regions, each a fight with a settled value and a size. The account plays them hottest first: add up what each is worth on average, then add the largest amount at stake, subtract the next, and so on down. The exact value of the whole position is computed beside it, and the figure prints both.

How it was found

The first time it told somebody something

A theory earns its keep when it produces an answer nobody had. Temperature did that for Go endgames — the orthodox account gives a move order that is provably right and is not the one experience offers, and the position it is right about is small enough to check here completely.

the temperature that bounds the loss. Temperature runs up the page and value across it. Each wall is where a player is willing to move once a tax of that much is charged per move; above the temperature at which they meet, neither wants to move and the position is worth its mean value. The height of the meeting point is what is at stake.

What it costs

A rule that is never right and cannot be far wrong

Playing the hottest component is not optimal — over 440 measured lines it costs something on 17 of them. What makes it worth having is that the cost is bounded by the temperature, provably, and that the same test run with the ordering reversed breaks the bound on 54.

Five rules over 120 sums built to punish greed. Each rule plays every sum against an opponent evaluating exactly, on a pool whose components are traps: a large immediate gain that hands the opponent a larger follow-up. The pool was built to punish the greedy rule and does not — that rule scores a move by the stop it leaves, and a stop already contains the follow-up. What the traps catch is the rule below it, which scores a move by the territory it takes and loses up to 16.

Temperature

A pool built to punish greed

The rung below found a rule with no theorem behind it beating the rule with one, and predicted that a pool of deliberate traps would reverse the result. It does not. The traps miss, because the rule called greedy scores a move by the stop it leaves and a stop already contains the follow-up — and the rule the traps do catch, losing sixteen points where the guaranteed rule loses five, had to be written to make the point.

The bound, and the cost, on four pools. Hottest-first play against optimal play on boards of two, three and four components drawn from four pools, 4,240 lines in all. The bound on the cost is the largest temperature on the board, which reaches 3; the worst cost measured anywhere is 1, and 100 lines meet the bound exactly.

What it costs

The bound names the hottest part and the cost does not

Moving in the hottest component costs at most the largest temperature on the board, and that bound is attained: 100 lines of 4,240 pay exactly it. It is still the wrong quantity. Across four pools and boards of two, three and four parts the cost is nothing on 90.8% of lines and otherwise takes one of two values — half a point or one — on boards whose largest temperature runs to three, and it exceeds the coolest component on 13 lines and twice it on none.

What it costs

The cheap fights make the rule cheaper

A conjecture stands that playing the hottest part costs at most the coolest temperature times the number of parts sharing it — proposed on a range where that number never exceeds two. Swept to five-part boards over 10,410 lines it is false, and false the other way round: every line costing more than the coolest part has one or two parts at that temperature, and over the 3,230 lines with three or more, not one does.

The whole library · The position index · The figures that play back