Once bots are universally accepted to play at a certain level it's not a big problem. But I'm pretty sure that no go professional relishes the thought of beeing a "pioneer" in the sense of beeing the first pro to lose at a certain handicap level. In chess, it's been no problem to lose against a bot ever since deep blue humbled the world champion.
Stefan On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Don Dailey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Stefan Kaitschick > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm with John on this one. >> Professional pride will prevail. >> 300$ won't make a pros knees go weak. >> Much worse would be the slim chance to lose a low handicap game. > > > I did not know that Go players were this vain and fearful. I know that a > lot of strong chess players have no problem with putting it on the line but > I guess I don't understand Go culture. I had the distinct impression that > strong Go players were kind of like a more humble versions of Chess players. > Kinder and gentler, perhaps one of those cultural misconceptions on my > part. > > Don > > >> >> Zen will have to beat a series of pros with 5 stones, before any of >> them will consider going down to 4. >> And 2 or 3 stones don't really need to be on the menu at this point. >> As for Dons risk/reward example: the best way to look at this is as a >> bankroll management problem. >> It turns out that bankroll utility is logarithmic.(see kelly staking). >> So the bet with the lower deviation is actually better in a rational >> sense. >> > > > > >> >> Stefan >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
