# [Computer-go] longest 3x3 game

Sun Feb 21 12:00:54 PST 2016

```  Hi!

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 01:55:05PM -0500, John Tromp wrote:
> > very interesting. Is it allowed for players
> > to pass in between? Do these passes count like
> > normal moves?
>
> Yes, passes are implied whenever two consecutively played stones
> are of the same color.

I'm wondering if there's some framework for studying combinatoric
aspects of games that are not only technically Go, but also actually
resemble real Go games played by competent players?

This research doesn't touch my heart very deeply because it seems
that the astonishing numbers rise up only while exploiting "loopholes"
in the technical rules formulation rather than their intention - passing
while you still have moves that'd improve your score, putting
whole-board groups in self-atari instead of capturing enemy groups
in atari, etc.

How would the results change if we approximated more realistic games
by introducing just the same basic restriction that we use in Monte
Carlo simulations - (i) filling your own true eye is invalid move,
(ii) do not pass if a move is avilable.

Naybe on 3x3, the games could still end up potentially quite long, but
perhaps more interesting.  And is there some way to quantify how harmful
that restriction is, besides the famous example of forcing a bulky five
(and how much that one matters at least on small boards like 5x5)?  How
often do 3x3 positions arise in random games that require filling your
own eye to win?

> > > Found a 582 move 3x3 game...
> > Can you give us sgf?
>
> I took the effort of trying to format the 582 game in a more insightful way.
> I ended up with lines of positions that mostly add stones, only starting
> a new line when a capture of more than 1 stone left at most 4 stones:
> The result is attached. I think there is clearly
> room for improvement, i.e. make this game much longer.

This was quite instructive, thank you very much for that!

--
Petr Baudis
If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton

```