On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:29 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
> No, humans are much weaker on 9x9 than on 19x19.
With all due respect, that's absurd. If that were true, then all
we would have to do is move to smaller boards if 19x19 were not
challenging enough.
I read somewhere that the 19x19 board size was the result of
a lot of experimentation over time. The
idea was that bigger boards are more challenging and that
top players considered the smaller boards too easy.
So I just can't make sense out of why you would believe that
smaller boards are more challenging.
> I'm AGA 3 Dan, and I've
> played thousands of 19x19 games, and hundreds of serious 19x19 tournament
> games. I've studied thousands of 19x19 professional games, and have had
> dozens of my 19x19 games analyzed by pros. I think before I tried playing
> Mogo, I had played about 3 serious 9x9 games, at a 9x9 tournament at a go
> congress about 10 years ago. So I know almost nothing about 9x9 strategy.
> Of course my general tactical knowledge applies to 9x9 boards, but I'm far
> stronger at 19x19 opening theory.
Of course small boards are easier for computers too. Even if you don't
agree, I believe that bigger boards are much more challenging for both
computers and humans. However, humans are better able to deal with
the extra complexities. So if you are playing against a computer, you
would obviously want a bigger board size. Humans are weaker at bigger
board sizes, but computers even more so.
> If someone with equal tactical ability had studied 9x9 as hard as I've
> studied 19x19, he would crush me in 9x9 games. My 9x9 judgment is much
> weaker than my 19x19 judgment due to lack of experience.
>
> 9x9 is interesting for computer go since it is much simpler than 19x19, but
> people don't play 9x9.
9x9 is a good board size for computers. I'm not really sure if there
is anything special about 19x19 (why not 17x17 or 21x21?) perhaps
they thought 17x17 was too hard (if it's true that smaller boards
are harder for humans.)
- Don
> David
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:02 AM
> > To: computer-go
> > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Sylvain's results
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 17:49 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> > > BTW. There is another stone in the way of 19x19 computer go.
> > > Knowledge. Humans play much stronger and do much stronger judgment
> > > than in 9x9.
> >
> > I think you said this backwards from what you intended.
> > Obviously, humans are closer to perfect play and understand
> > 9x9 better than
> > 19x19. Someone on this group even expressed the opinion that
> > professional players are close to perfect at 9x9.
> >
> > At 19x19 I'm sure there is a great deal of distance to cover even
> > for the very top players.
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > computer-go mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
