from the bottom to the top of pro ranks is something like 1.5 stones, right? so 4 is more than a doubling beyond that difference...
s. On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Don Dailey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
