> > 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 don't mean that 9x9 is trivial. It's just not very interesting to play for someone who plays go. For example, if I started talking about playing chess on a 6x6 board without rooks and with only 6 pawns, it would still be a nontrivial game, but it's not a game that serious chess players would want to play much. If I put up a server to play this 6x6 chess variant and got a lot of programmers interested in writing programs for it, it's still nontrival, but still not very interesting for chess players. It's a different game. David _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
