On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:49 AM, David Fotland <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > However I think that changing already established rules can have a > negative impact on games and it's often better to keep with tradition. > > > > Why do you think that your statement above applies to chess, but not to > go? > I don't think that. That statement was meant to be applied to Go more than chess, you just misunderstood me. Go does not need a board size change, but a lot of people believe that Chess has become too draw-ish at the top levels and that it needs some changes. Changing the board size invalidates hundreds of years of opening theory > research. Thousands of professional games are available for study on 19x19, > and none are available on 17x17 or 21x21. Changing the board size to 17x17 > is just a big a change as changing some of the rules you mention for chess. > Yes, 19x19 is standard and based on my previous comments you should realize that I don't consider 19x19 inferior to 21x21 or any reasonably large board size. My comment is from the other view, that I don't consider 19x19 superior, that's certainly not the same as saying that it needs to be changed. >I think people BELIEVE that 19x19 is the best board size because it's what > they were taught, and anything else seems wrong and "unbalanced" which means > it isn't what they are used to. > > > > Of course you are entitled to this opinion, so I won’t argue it. I’ve seen > far sillier opinions from beginning players who didn’t understand the game. > In the earlier days of computer chess I remember hearing a chess grandmaster ramble on about why computers would never achieve the master level. His explanation was full of subjective nonsense, about conceptual mental barriers, the uselessness of tactics beyond a few ply of search, etc. He basically proved to me that his expertise was only in how to play the game, nothing else. So when it comes to subjective issues I have absolutely no respect for the opinion of experts in any field - you have to think these things out for yourself. I am quite positive that a 19x19 go expert can comment on the differences in play style between board sizes and I would trust him on this because this is something he might be expected to know a lot about. But to expect that he could give an objective comment on which is "better" is pure fantasy. "Better" in this context cannot even be defined. This is a lot like asking a computer scientist which computer language is "best" - I suppose you would expect a purely objective response from any computer scientist on this too? Or would you ask a catholic priest which religion you should adopt? I think in this case YOU are the naive one. Don Don > > > > > > > > David > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Don Dailey > *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 10:28 AM > > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Computer-go] 17x17 vs 19x19 > > > > I'm always pretty skeptical of subjective statement even by experts - in > any field, but then again I have no basis for confirming or refuting such > things being a weak player myself. It's just the idea that 19x19 is > perfect and 17x17 and 21x21 is crap seems unlikely to me, an admittedly weak > player myself. > > > > I kind of like to think of games (of perfect information) in terms of what > chance does a top human (or future human) player have a beating or drawing a > player who is omniscient in the game. If that chance is very close to > zero, it's a good game and it doesn't make it a "better game" to make the > chances even lower. In fact what is "better" is pretty subjective, isn't > it? > > > > All games of perfect information are rigged anyway. They have a > predetermined outcome that will be reached with perfect play, so they are > basically sophisticated puzzles. > > > > Don > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Alain Baeckeroot < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Le 15/07/2010 à 19:30, Don Dailey a écrit : > > In computer checkers it's all about the openings. > ... > > So perhaps 9x9 go is starting to be somewhat like that. > ... > > Never say never, but I believe that even 11x11 Go is deep enough so that > > opening preparation could only play a minor role for the foreseeable > future. > ... > > I'm not suggesting that 19x19 should not be the standard board size for > go - > > Your thoughts remind me something i was told by a strong amateur (kgs 7d) > about the transition from 17x17 to 19x19 which occured several centuries > ago. > "17x17 is boring" > because the border have "just the right size" to be stable, > that is standard well known corner josekis and extensions allow to take the > border without problem, whereas on the 19x19 there is additional space, > which > give weakness, so possibility for invasion/erosion/trouble. > > I hope some strong go player on the list can better explain this. > my 2 cents. > Alain. > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
