On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:12 -0700, David Fotland wrote: > > 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 :)
You are in a better position to understand this than I am. I just know I've seen very strong players play 9x9 games on KGS - and over a period of years I would expect there to be a large number although it obviously wouldn't begin to compare to the real game. I don't remember what I actually saw, perhaps it was a match with a weaker player or odds game or something. I also agree that 9x9 doesn't compare to 19x19. I disagree that it's not interesting. It would be uninteresting if, for instance, someone like you were just as good at the top pro's at 9x9. It stops being interested when it can be "mastered." If the top players can always play a perfect game, it's not interesting to them, but probably still interesting to me, and to a lesser extent someone like you who would probably be playing close to perfect if the pro's were playing perfect. There would probably be very little difference in someone like you and a top pro and if you played a game well enough you might get some wins if you were on the right side of komi. But this all assumes the game is almost played out. I don't think 9x9 is. I have no argument that any particular individual may not find it interesting as a matter of personal choice. For instance there are many things I don't find interesting even though I haven't mastered them. Or your point of view may be that the bigger board is much MORE interesting, so why bother with smaller ones? But that doesn't take away from the fact that 9x9 is still "interesting" and still a deep profound game. If you belittle 9x9, indirectly you detract from 19x19 because you imply that the whole game isn't very interesting unless you can put on a massive board. > > 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. Most of my comments are directed to 19x19 go. I lay out one possible plan to produce a very strong 19x19 player. I'm interested in 9x9 only as a stepping stone. It's far more manageable and if you can't "whip" 9x9, you have no chance going bigger. It's way easier to test and get quick results in a methodical way. > > 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. YES! I remember that and I thought it was a real travesty. > > 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. I put up the 19x19 server a few weeks ago, but there hasn't been much interest. 9x9 is clearly more "fun" in some ways. I would like to get all the bugs out of CGOS and then try to find a way to promote the 19x19 server better, perhaps adding some kind of overtime as you suggest and even handicaps. But I don't want to do that work if it's isn't going to be used. - Don > > - Don > > -David Fotland > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
