On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:18 PM, David Fotland <[email protected]>wrote:
> There was a study about 10 or 15 years ago that used the measured variance > in score to extrapolate perfect play (with zero variance), and it got 4 > stones better than the top pros. That's where this estimate comes from. > It's a lot more believable then. I guess at that level 4 stones is an enormous gulf. It works like this in chess too, pawn odds or knight odds is huge at the upper levels, but at the raw beginner level having an extra knight is not that big an advantage. > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:computer-go- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Jacques Basaldúa > > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 9:09 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting > > > > >/ And that's the optimistic view: the usual wild guess is that the best > > />/ pros are about four stones away from perfect play. > > > > Playing losing positions is tricky. The perfect move for w > > minimax wise in handicap 4 is resign. So maybe accepting > > that initially white loses by b_0 points and playing always > > a move that keeps this minimax value expecting blacks > > suboptimal choices to make b_i negative for some i is > > probably not the best strategy. It is accepting: Ok i am > > behind by (say) 45 points, lets build a solid 45 point loss. > > > > We can imagine how much a human pro can read from what > > Catailin Taranu explains from his own games in his > > eurogotv.com videos. Humans narrow the search very much > > an may foresee say 20 moves. (Anyone reads 20 moves in a > > ladder I mean 20 moves in a fight.) A perfect player could > > read 300-400 ply full width. Obviously, it could also > > compute what humans will not see or may see. Rather than > > perfect play, an aggressive overhuman 300 ply deep full > > board tesuji could probably include killing the 4 handicap > > stones for free. If perfect play means overhuman tesuji I > > guess 4 handicap stones is too few. > > > > Paradoxically, perfect evaluation can be a drawback > > and minimax wise perfect play could be non-aggressive. > > > > Of course, we can bet as high as we want because we will > > never know. > > > > Jacques. > > > > / > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
