I assume in Go the difference is also a very large handicap.
in any case, i think that the difference is probably much larger than
just one or two stones. :)
It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will accept games play with
God even if bet his life.
When in limited local
On 27-nov-06, at 08:35, igo wrote:
It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will accept games
play with God even if bet his life.
I don't know if that's a generally accpted estimate. But I know that
Otake Hideo once said he'd bet his life with 4 stones against God. He
also added
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It is said if has 4 stones handicap, every Pro will
accept games play with God even if bet his life.
wow. i thought that there were at least two
stones worth of slack in the opening, and another
two in ko fighting. :)
And, the right to win all ko fights without
having to fight them
is only worth half a stone.
uh, that depends upon what the kos are for.
and actually, what i meant was that its threats
might be so complicated that they would be
ignored.
s.
A good point to consider - is God actively trying to confuse his
opponent and complicate things, or is he simply playing objectively best
moves?
- Don
On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 07:39 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
wow. i thought that there were at least two
stones worth of slack in the opening,
A good point to consider - is God actively trying
to confuse his
opponent and complicate things, or is he simply
playing objectively best
moves?
good question. if his goal is to win with zero
handicap, all he has to do is pick a branch that
ends with a win for, say, W. if he is starting
I've often wondered how I would program a computer to play a game, chess
or go,
if I had perfect information about the game.How do you make it more
difficult
to win against a fallible opponent?
I assume that in many positions there are more than 1 maximizing move.
I would of
course restrict
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:59:30PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
A good point to consider - is God actively trying to confuse his
opponent and complicate things, or is he simply playing objectively best
moves?
I have heard this terminology somewhere, but can't remember where:
A god plays
I guess you would simply steer towards positions
where the computer had
lot's of good moves and the opponent had very few
good moves.
this is essentially the same thing -- if you play
in a branch where the highest percentage of moves
lead to a win for you, then this means that your
But a god will win over the
devil, as he will not
fall in any of the traps, but can use the suboptimal
play spent in
setting those up.
actually, whomever is slated to win with perfect play
(1st or 2nd player) will win, because setting up
traps isn't necessarily inefficient -- it just
means
A good devil tries to win by MORE than he deserves and will
try to win in a losing position.
I have heard this terminology before and my understanding was
that a devil still plays a perfect game, he just tries to be
deceptive about it.
I don't see any point in not playing perfect if you can
Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:59:30 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] .. if Monte-Carlo programs would play infinitestrong
A good point to consider - is God actively trying to confuse his
opponent and complicate things, or is he
In the second game Fritz against Kramnik Fritz played strategically very
poor (or Kramnik very strong), Kramnik avoided a 3-times repetition offer
of Fritz, but at the end Kramnik missed an easy to see mate in 1!! and lost
very badly. Thats the end of the match. He will not be able to recover
Shodan players are far, far, from perfect play. Shodan players have a good
understanding of most basic concepts, and can solve simple tactical problems
during a game, but that's about it. I'm 3 Dan, and almost every move I make
is a mistake of some kind. The gap in skill between a shodan and a
I
assume in Go the difference is also a very large
handicap.
i think that this has come up before, but at one
point someone suggested that top pros are only a
few stones' handicap away from perfect play. i
think that komi might be the right way to think about
this at that level, as handicap
Eeh, am I missing some point here or would not any Go program that uses
search and infinite computer power simply SOLVE the game - given that
scoring is done right and infinite loops are ruled out?
The question should be more precisley stated as: Is playing strength a
strictly-monoton
on a practical note, i think that MC is a great
idea for 9x9, and might even be a great idea as
a subset of a larger piece of code that employs
human knowledge, but that MC will never beat a
decent human at 19x19. the time/space limitations
are just too great.
Does this mean that it does not
17 matches
Mail list logo
