hi Don, > I cannot relate so much to go as I am a chess player. I know that if I > were in his position and I were to play a serious match against some > computer chess opponent (one weak enough that I had a realistic chance of > winning) then my test matches would really be more like "training matches" > as I feel that going all out would be the best way to find out what I was up > against and to learn about my opponent. John may have a completely > different notion however about how this should be approached and out of > curiosity I would like to know if he is willing to share his experiences. > This is something you cannot tell me.
I agree the best way to prepare against a computer is just to play your best, as you would in any serious game. That is exactly how I played these games. I believe that whatever weaknesses the computer has will become apparent in a serious game just as likely, if not more so, than in an "experimental game" where you run a greater risk of premature defeat. The longer a game lasts, and the longer it remains balanced, the more opportunities for weaknesses to become apparent. That goes for human's weaknesses as well... regards, -John _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
