At 08:45 PM 1/18/2007, you wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:05 -0800, Ray Tayek wrote:
>
> yes. i would easily give my opponent *much* more time than a few
> handicap stones. the effect of time making someone (or thing) play
> better (or worse) is non-linear and probably only effective over some
> small range of time and talent.
I think the formula is probably similar to UCT or Chess, but even more
so for humans.
sorry, no clue about the formula.
Double the amount of time you have, and significantly
increase the quality of the move. I don't think this is a limited
effect over a narrow range of time.
i suspect that it is in humans. i am only a 1-dan player. but during
most of the game:
if i have a reasonable amount if time (say 1 hour or so), doubling or
trippling the time to think about one move (or for the whole game)
does not make any difference (but i have been playing for 40 years).
i tend to reach my limit of reading (look ahead).
i would cut my time to 40 minutes for 2 stones and play for money. 30
minutes for 3 stones, 25 minutes for 4 stones, 20 minutes for 5 stones.
giving most 1-dans more than an hour is not going to help their game
that much. we only play so well. pro's can probably defeat this since
they can make the game complicated.
I understand chess better than go, I used to be a tournament player.
Give me time to think and I can produce moves
of enormously higher quality over tournament time-controls. I know
this for a fact. I seriously doubt it is different for go.
i don't play chess. but it seems different to me in go.
...
It probably is non-linear like you say - even in the more limited game
of Chess, the curve was amazingly linear (every doubling in time seemed
to give a fixed amount
of ELO strength improvement) ...
well, chess is close to 1+ battles. more look ahead should help in
some linear way perhaps. go goes off the rails fast when you consider
interactions of say the corner josekis to other corners.
As far as talent is concerned, some chess experiments seem to indicate ...
I think it might work the same with humans - ... ...
don' t know enough to comment.
So I think strength in humans is very much the same - perhaps even more
scalable than with computers - subject of course to human frailties of
attention span, sleep time, ability to focus for long periods of time,
etc.
i play 20-25 minute games on yahoo sometimes when i am bored. these
are moderately fast. some people play insanely fast (too me). like 10
minutes (this is total time. no byo-yomi). ignoring what a group of
people might be able to do, i suspect that having more than two hours
of time per game for amateurs is the limit of usefulness. a pro could
probably benefit from a much larger increase in time.
thanks
---
vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
