Hi Vincent, What does this possibly have to do with me?
> But we must correct you here in case you no longer see yourself as a > beginner > or as an advanced beginner. > > Directly after learning the games of > chess, a strong go player will be able to win from you. > > Strategically and tactically they're that much above your level that > they will > completely annihilate you. Ok, since you seem to be so interested ... I don't currently play chess and haven't for over 20 years. But I think an excellent description of the way I used to play chess is "mediocre" which means, "Of a middle quality; of but a moderate or low degree of excellence" "Middle quality" is just about right. I played tournament chess for about 2 years. The median tournament chess player at that time was between 1500-1600 ELO I believe. My PEAK rating was 1914 which is not much more than median (I was still in the fat part of the Bell shaped curve even if I was above average.) And low degree of excellence fits because plenty of players exist hundreds of ELO stronger than myself. I think I would be a very good candidate for this experiment, even though the last thing on my mind was using myself as an example and I'm flattered that you choose to pick on me. So if you can locate a very strong GO player who has never heard of chess, I would very happily give you a day to teach him the rules of the game and to coach him on strategy. I think I would easily win a 10 game match. In fact, I believe a player significantly weaker than myself would easily win a 10 game match. Please note that a player of my weak ability rarely produces good games. I have rarely produced a game of chess I am proud of, my games being laced with errors that even I can see on further analysis. Chess is all about errors until you get to the really high levels, and then it's still all about errors. You never see chess players showing off their lost games. However it makes me laugh to think that you believe someone who has never even learned the rules of the game would play close to USCF master level immediately after learning the rules. You said that they would be able to "completely annihilate" me. What does it mean to completely annihilate someone? If you assume that means they will win 90% of the time, this implies they would have to be at least USCF master strength. There is no point even talking about this, unless you can actually arrange this experiment. Your statement is so ridiculous that I wonder if you have lost your mind. Please don't come back at me with another rant - produce this player who can immediately beat me even though he doesn't even know the rules. - Don On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 17:27 +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Don Dailey wrote: > > > The rules are exactly the same for 9x9 as for 19x19. The boardsize is > > different and that changes the game some. > > > > I would suggest that if a top go player plays a game of chess > > immediately after first learning the rules, he would lose very badly > > to even mediocre players or even advanced beginners. > > > > Usually i hesitate commenting just upon 1 statement out of an entire > story. Additionally you have the advantage of the native English skill; > kind of Obama type statement that you can still define an 'advanced > beginner' > as being a titled player who doesn't make money with it. > > But we must correct you here in case you no longer see yourself as a > beginner > or as an advanced beginner. > > Directly after learning the games of > chess, a strong go player will be able to win from you. > > Strategically and tactically they're that much above your level that > they will > completely annihilate you. > > Regarding that there are big differences between 9x9 and 19x19 i agree. > > 9x9 is a very simple game compared to 19x19. > From computer algorithms viewpoint seen that hard forward pruning is > tougher to > do there; explaining why the current random searching methods do so > bad in 9x9 and a lot better > at 19x19, relatively spoken. In absolute sense the will fail at both > games of course. > > The only proof the current random searching methods give in go is > that searching deeply in random manner > is better than searching short lines in super-dubious manner. IMHO > this is logical. > > The fact that there is zero fulltime salary prospects to get clever > guys interested in putting in years of fulltime effort into 9x9, > is the reason why the programs play this still so weak, as just a > single one of them would raise the game quality a lot. > > It is of course a combination of evaluation and search. > > What you typically see is that players with little domain knowldge in > chess nor go, > are busy with it now, doing a brute force attempt. > > Note that computer-go has one big advantage over computer-chess; > because there is little sales possible to > achieve, there is little money at stake, that gives the advantage > that the programmers at least communicate > with each other in a forum like this and at tournaments. In > computerchess it is very difficult to find talkative persons. > > The main progress that happens in computerchess is simply by > debugging other persons code. > It goes that far that a Russian author has even simply automatically > converted the program Rybka 1.0 back > from assembler into C code, it is called strelka. > > This communicative skills problem is why progress in computerchess > goes relative slow. Still many brilliant guys > get lured into it, because chess gets played in 105+ nations. You see > clearly now that they do not do much effort > for it nowadays, as just like computer-go there is nearly no money to > make with an engine (in contradiction to GUI). > > In doing that, it is selfexplaining that those who have a parallel go- > program, > still didn't figure out what computerchess already knew in the 80s, > namely that > to run parallel you need to avoid central locking, and need to search > with > a global hashtable (Feldmann, somewhere in the 80s) > and a decentralized form of doing the search. That sure involves > locking in case you want a good speedup, something Leierson&co with > CILK did not > manage nor Feldmann, but that is all very well solvable with a big > effort. > > Yet those big guys who were busy with chess in the past years, who > already knew back in the 80s a lot > about decentralizing the parallel search, in computer-go they seem > absent. > > Vincent > > > > I really doubt this would be the case with 9x9 go. I don't think you > > can really make a strong argument that 9x9 isn't go or that it's > > not the > > same game. You CAN argue that the characteristics of the game are > > different and different aspects of the game are emphasized. > > > > Some really strong players may not be specialists in 9x9 and may > > lose to > > players who specialize in 9x9 but are otherwise a few stones weaker at > > 19x19, but that's not remarkable. In chess you can also be weakened > > significantly and be "thrown off your game" by a surprise opening - or > > we could imagine a game where your opening is decided for you and it > > would make you very uncomfortable. > > > > My guess (and it's only a guess) is that strong players playing on the > > 9x9 board are simply very uncomfortable but probably do not play as > > weak > > as they imagine. In chess I heard that someone once did a study to > > find out if playing speed chess weakened the performance of some > > players > > more than others and despite the fact that many players imagine > > that it > > does, it turned out that there was a remarkable correlation, > > although no > > doubt some players who specialize at different time controls would > > have > > an edge. > > > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-09-10 at 11:27 +0900, Hideki Kato wrote: > >> Christoph Birk: <Pine.LNX. > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote: > >>>> testbed for > >>>> parallelization because it's more difficult) and as "real" > >>>> targets (as there > >>>> are players > >>>> for both). > >>> > >>> Sorry, but there are (almost) no players for 9x9. To repeat > >>> D.Fotland's earlier comment: 9x9 is just for beginner's practice. > >>> It's not go. > >> > >> Other than the match CS vs. Kaori Aoba 4p, which Rémi reported > >> recently, there was a 9x9 match CS vs. Meien O 9p with no komi at > >> FIT2008. CS (B) won by 3 points. > >> > >> I'd like to emphasize "9x9 is Go." > >> > >> Hideki > >> > >>> Christoph > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> computer-go mailing list > >>> computer-go@computer-go.org > >>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > >> -- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) > >> _______________________________________________ > >> computer-go mailing list > >> computer-go@computer-go.org > >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > computer-go mailing list > > computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
