> I'll bet there have been millions of 9x9 games by very strong > players, they are probably just not readily accessible.
Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur), and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning the rules. I played in a couple of 9x9 tournaments on the crazy go day at the go congress (along with 3-d go, hex go, etc). Most beginners only need a couple of games on 9x9 before they start paying 19x19. 9x9 go is not very interesting to strong players, since it's not really go. I might as well be playing checkers or 9 men's morris :) > But with something like CGOS a program like Mogo has bragging > rights. It's possible one of the commercial programs is > better than Mogo, or > perhaps another amateur program is better. But in most > peoples minds, > Mogo is the best at 9x9 because it was willing to take the > risk on CGOS > (in all likelihood, it really IS the best and few doubt > this.) I can confirm that Mogo is quite a bit stronger than the commercial programs at 9x9 go. I'm not very interested in 9x9 go. Most of the commercial programs have algorithms that don't scale well down to 9x9, since they are all designed for 19x19 go. The 19x19 knowledge that makes them strong does not apply at 9x9. Since people don't play 9x9 go, there is no incentive commercial program authors to make their programs strong at 9x9. > > > Here is what we need in order to achieve a Dan level 19x19 > player within a couple of years in my opinion: > > COMPETITION > > Not once a year, but constant. A very high profile occasional > competition however is still a great and useful thing to have. > > FEEDBACK > > You need to always know where you stand so you can constantly be goal > oriented. Where you stand in relation to others that is. > > STATUS > > There must be some kind of recognition, highly visible > acknowledgment of > the pecking order to stimulate and motivate the competitors. I agree. Progress was very swift in the Ing competition, with programs improving from about 25 kyu to about 5-8 kyu. Since 2000 the competition and status has been missing, so progress has stopped, or at least is not visible. The algorithms that worked well on a 33 MHz 386 with 0.5 MB memory are very different from what is possible on today's machines. > > Once money and status come into the picture big time, then cheating > will start to play a major role. Cheating did play big role. Even though Ing and FOST had on-site tournaments, there was still the issue of reverse engineering the top programs. > > I also have to say that Nick Wedd's monthly tournaments are > critically important and unquestionably a big part of the > sudden progress in > computer GO. I think those tournaments and CGOS complement > each other > in a beautiful way. Probably more credit goes to Nick Wedd's > tournaments than CGOS. Those tournament inspired CGOS and they also > motivated (in my opinion) a lot of progress in computer chess before > CGOS was even up and running. But they do complement each other - > CGOS provides instrumentation that KGS is lacking. Nick's tournaments and CGOS have made a huge difference in revitalizing computer go. I'd like to see both expanded to 19x19 with 30 minute per player time limits and some overtime. > > - Don -David Fotland _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
