I think draws play a big factor in the length of an Elo-scale. Chess has a large draw margin, go has a small one. A perfect chess game probably ends in a draw, so the stronger the chess players, the harder it is for the stronger player to secure a win. This effect compresses the upper part of the chess Elo-scale, reducing the complexity number. Go would have less levels if we enlarged the draw margin by adding a rule that a game is a draw when the score difference is less than 50 points. But then again, that kind of rule would make the game a lot less easier to play. Dave de Vos
________________________________ Van: [email protected] namens Ashley Griffiths Verzonden: di 26-10-2010 23:43 Aan: [email protected] Onderwerp: Re: [Computer-go] human complexity measure of games I am pretty sure the original article came to the conclusion that Poker was a 1 or 2, and backgammon was a 4. Been a while since i saw it, but I think those were the numbers. With checkers at 8, chess at 16 and go at approximately 40. So its not like the authors had a problem with poker having a low complexity. The 40 rating for go is representative of a pro player versus an absolute begginner and gives the beginner something like 8E-23% chance to beat a pro (thats probably less than the chance of the pro dropping dead mid game :p) If poker had a 1 rating it says an absolute beginner has a 25% chance to beat Dolly (if its 2 then its a 6.25% chance, and from that I am inclined to think its probably actually somewhere between the two, which based on the definition would mean it is a complexity of 1) Wow that was a bit rambly, sorry about that --Ash ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Birk" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:25 PM Subject: Re: [Computer-go] human complexity measure of games > On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Nick Wedd wrote: >> I believe that I am much stronger than IdiotBot. IdiotBot makes its >> moves at random. But it is not impossible that IdiotBot will beat me, by >> luckily happening to make good moves. > > You are arguing using a real edge case. More realistically, > if I (3 kuy) play a pro I will not win a game in my lifetime, > even if we play every day. > If I (_not_ a poker pro) play 100 sessions of poker > (say 4 hrs) against Doyle Brunson, then I am confident to > finish ahead a few times. > > Christoph > _______________________________________________ > 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
