[Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting

David Fotland fotland at smart-games.com
Mon Oct 11 22:39:19 PDT 2010


Cgos kicked everyone off about a day ago, and many have not come back yet.

 

David

 

From: computer-go-bounces at dvandva.org
[mailto:computer-go-bounces at dvandva.org] On Behalf Of terry mcintyre
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 11:18 AM
To: computer-go at dvandva.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting

 

It looks like few of the top players are active at the moment; there's a
copy of Zen, and the next strongest program playing a game is Fuego. About
ten strong programs have not played for some while.
 

Terry McIntyre <terrymcintyre at yahoo.com>

Unix/Linux Systems Administration
Taking time to do it right saves having to do it twice.

 

 

  _____  

From: David Fotland <fotland at smart-games.com>
To: computer-go at dvandva.org
Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 12:18:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting

There was a study about 10 or 15 years ago that used the measured variance
in score to extrapolate perfect play (with zero variance), and it got 4
stones better than the top pros.  That's where this estimate comes from.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces at dvandva.org [mailto:computer-go-
> bounces at dvandva.org] On Behalf Of Jacques BasaldĂșa
> Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 9:09 AM
> To: computer-go at dvandva.org
> Subject: [Computer-go] cgos 19x19 gets interesting
> 
> >/ And that's the optimistic view: the usual wild guess is that the best
> />/ pros are about four stones away from perfect play.
> 
> Playing losing positions is tricky. The perfect move for w
> minimax wise in handicap 4 is resign. So maybe accepting
> that initially white loses by b_0 points and playing always
> a move that keeps this minimax value expecting blacks
> suboptimal choices to make b_i negative for some i is
> probably not the best strategy. It is accepting: Ok i am
> behind by (say) 45 points, lets build a solid 45 point loss.
> 
> We can imagine how much a human pro can read from what
> Catailin Taranu explains from his own games in his
> eurogotv.com videos. Humans narrow the search very much
> an may foresee say 20 moves. (Anyone reads 20 moves in a
> ladder I mean 20 moves in a fight.) A perfect player could
> read 300-400 ply full width. Obviously, it could also
> compute what humans will not see or may see. Rather than
> perfect play, an aggressive overhuman 300 ply deep full
> board tesuji could probably include killing the 4 handicap
> stones for free. If perfect play means overhuman tesuji I
> guess 4 handicap stones is too few.
> 
> Paradoxically, perfect evaluation can be a drawback
> and minimax wise perfect play could be non-aggressive.
> 
> Of course, we can bet as high as we want because we will
> never know.
> 
> Jacques.
> 
> /
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at dvandva.org
> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go at dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20101011/7b802b73/attachment.html>


More information about the Computer-go mailing list