[computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's rank.

[Ray Tayek]

At 04:23 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote:
>On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:34 -0700, Arend Bayer wrote:
> > ...
> > On 1/20/07, Don Dailey <drd at mit.edu> wrote:
> >         If what you are saying is true, this is a waste of time. ...
>
>But I'm not talking about opening preparation.
>
>My point is all about just a few critical moves, not the majority of
>them.
>If you are given twice as much thinking time,  there is bound to be 2 or
>3 moves in a 300 move game where it makes a difference in the quality
>of
>those 2 or 3 moves.   And that is worth 1 or more ranks of strength.
>...

i think these kinds of moves are much more frequent in to, maybe a 
dozen (or two) for each player (in the 1-dan area)

>I believe this is all part of the strength/time relationship curve.  If
>there is
>a huge disparity in playing strength,  giving you a thousand times more
>thinking
>time won't  be nearly enough to make up the gap.

i agree, there is a huge difference and huge disparities in time in 
general will not help. (you may play better, but you won't win).

>...
>It's the same, I believe, with humans and probably why everyone here
>seems to
>believe what I'm saying is wrong, they think that I am implying that you
>can
>spend a few minutes on a move and play champion level.   But if you are
>given twice as much thinking time,  it's not going to turn you games
>from idiotic to brilliant.     It will improve the (average) quality of
>your moves, but barely enough to notice.

i agree.

also i suspect that at least 33% of the moves (at my 1-dan level) are 
wrong (what you might call in chess a "blunder"?).

what do other people of different strengths think about this 33%?

thanks

---
vice-chair http://ocjug.org/