Hi!
Couple of ideas.
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:19:39AM +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:
> One point is: The absolute strength of the program need not to be
> better than the strength of the player who uses it for analysis purposes.
> It is enough that the program is tactically strong.
But strong Go programs are traditionally strategically strong, but
tactically *weak*. We still don't have a good publicly available tsumego
solver. I think this makes their capabilities a lot less useful for
game analysis.
> Another point: Once you have a database program with nice functionality,
> it is only a question of short time until it is supported by playing
> programs.
(I think we have pretty good web-based Go database engines now.)
> > On the other hand, commercial engines are probably close to breaking the
> > 1p barrier soon. At which point they'll become analysis tools even for
> > the higher echelon of players, if initial resistance to "a new thing"
> > can be overcome.
>
> And for that it would be very helpful to have a few popular top players
> using it.
So my main hypothesis is that the English-speaking market is very
small, and the East Asian language barrier(s) prevent a lot of network
effects to kick in; the Western audience is small and the barrier is
hard to overcome. (In the Chess world, there probably was
English-Russian barrier but the player distribution is still a lot
more even, imho.)
--
Petr Baudis
If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
