Re: computer-go: proof

[Robert Jasiek <jasiek@xxxxxxxx>]

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
> let's directly start with proof.

I'd call it an example rather than a proof.

> Now let's extrapolate this, sure the strongest human
> player with 9 stones up in go will win easily against
> a perfect database.

This statement comes without reason.
 
> i doubt they're equally strong. Most go players don't even annotate their
> game. In chess everything gets annotated and analysed.

Just to get things right: In go it is not a custom to annotate the own
game. Instead the professional just remembers it even years
thereafter.

> Kasparov
> is probably better in chess as any go player ever was in go.

How do you measure such?

> Apart from that kasparov's real strong weapen which puts him
> at this high rating is the fact that he has a superb openings advantage
> always, which is quite hard in go, as there are so many possible
> openings in go, where in chess one CAN analyze ones opponents openings
> play in depth!

In go you CAN prepare openings well. You can't prepare fixed patterns
but you can prepare general strategic knowledge. 

--rj