[computer-go] New version of Crazy Stone

[Jim O'Flaherty, Jr.]

David,
 
I'm curious to understand how such a study might work.  Do you have any links or references to the studies?  I am genuinely curious.
 
Since perfection is computationally outside any sort of human or device we have discovered/invented thus far, what kind of basis establishes a "perfection horizon" against which the pros could be measured?
 
I am coming from a frame that there is something here I can learn, not that the studies are erred or fallacious.
 
 
Jim


----- Original Message ----
From: David Fotland <fotland at smart-games.com>
To: drd at mit.edu; computer-go <computer-go at computer-go.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2006 4:17:55 PM
Subject: RE: [computer-go] New version of Crazy Stone


Statistical studies suggest that the top pro players are about 4 handicap
stones from perfection.  Since there are only about 2 stones between the top
amateurs and the top pros, this is quite a large gap.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org 
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:52 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] New version of Crazy Stone
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org 
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> 

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go at computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20060603/481bfdcb/attachment.html