[computer-go] New version of Crazy Stone

[Don Dailey]

Although I'm not very knowledgeable about Go as a player,
I would agree with the statement that human ability is
vastly overestimated.    This has been the case in so
many fields that I am sure it's the case here too.

Sometimes I think that experts in a particular fields are
the worst ones to ask.   It's often the case that there is
a kind of arrogance involved, where they place themselves
and their achievements too high on an absolute scale.

I have asked and pondered this question with chess skill
too.   Even standard checkers on an 8x8 board is not
really mastered by humans and it is far simpler than
chess, and chess is far simpler than GO.   

I did a simplified version of checkers once on a 6x6
board where it was possible to achieve incredible search 
depths.

In my study I learned that it was possible to get 
continued playing improvements up to the point I could
reasonable test.   That was a few years ago and perhaps
6x6 checkers is now doable with perfection by computer -
but it dramatically illustrated to me that if you could
still make improvements on such a simplified game,  then 
the top computer chess programs must still be incredibly 
far away from perfect play.   

Now you can get chess programs that are as good as the
best players for your home PC.   So my guess is that human
chess players are as far from perfection as masters are
from beginning players.    If that is true of chess, I'm
sure it is at least as true, or more - for go.

It may be that at levels well beyond human play it does not
make as much sense to measure playing ability in terms
of "stones."    Perhaps there is huge range of skill within
that final "stone" of playing ability - where a 1 stone
handicap makes it impossible to win but without the handicap
you can dominate a near perfect player who is still not quite
as nearly perfect as you are!


- Don



 
On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 05:28 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote:
> > How many stones would a top pro need against a
> > perfect player? (3 or 4
> > has been bandied about as the answer).
> 
> that's an excellent question, although i think
> that it dramatically overrates human playing
> strength.  to think about it a different way,
> how many stones would a top pro player today
> be able to give to a top pro player from 50
> or more years ago?  even in just the fuseki,
> so many newer josekis (including chinese and
> korean styles) have been created that a pro
> from another time wouldn't have the knowledge
> to deal with, i think that at least a stone or
> two would be fair.  to imagine that we're now
> only 3 or 4 stones away from perfect play is
> a great stretch of the imagination about our
> progress in the last 50 years, i think.
> 
> s.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/