Nick Wedd wrote:
I suggest that instead of getting your neural players to play Go, you
get them to play a very slightly different game, in which, when both
players pass in turn, all stones remaining on the board are deemed
alive. It is not difficult to write a scoring algorithm for this game.
Nick Wedd wrote:
So what _is_ reality nowadays? Your previous email did not make this
clear. Are Japanese pro grades now closer together than a third of a
stone, or farther apart?
The reality is that the correlation between ranks and playing strengths
is very low, and that knowing that
dave.de...@planet.nl wrote:
What you are saying is that many professionals are overrated or
underrated (sometimes by as much as two stones).
No, what I'm saying is that professional ranking systems are not meant
to be rating systems and should not be treated as if they were rating
systems.
Hi Mark,
I'm not claiming to be an authority on the matter, but I beg to
differ. Name me an EGF 7-dan that's not professional level. And then
explain how come they are listed among players that are anywhere from
1p to 5p in different Asian countries. I used to be an EGF 6-dan and
have beaten
Mark Boon wrote:
All the examples given to support the argument either way are at best
anecdotal. But looking at the EGF ranking list, the 7-dan players are
interspersed with players of professional ranks, with very few 6 dans
among them. That is based on a considerable amount of data. Maybe you
dave.de...@planet.nl wrote:
Also, a 4p is not a 7p. The difference should be about one stone. 4p is
equivalent to 8d EGF.
I wish people would stop spreading such incorrect information. The
correlation between professional ranks and playing strength is quite
bad, and EGF 7dans are not,
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Michael Goetze wrote:
I doubt that this rule has a significant effect on playing strength,
either of computers or humans. After all, the average effect is about
half a point per game, which you probably won't notice below the
level of amateur 6d or 7d.
You are right
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Ok, that is a technical answer. But ...
... what does the rule change mean for strengths of
programs - especially in play against (strong) humans?
Would this rule help the computers or the humans?
I doubt that this rule has a significant effect on playing strength,
either
David Fotland wrote:
AGA rules also have the effect of changing the komi depending on which
side makes the last pass.
No, they don't. AGA rules are area-scoring rules and the komi is fixed.
(They also provide a method to determine the area-scoring result via
territory counting, but that's
David Fotland wrote:
Semantics. If white passes first she has to give one more prisoner to black
than if black passes first. This changes the score by one point relative to
Japanese rules, which has the same effect as changing the komi by a point.
Of course I'm aware that the komi is not
10 matches
Mail list logo
