Re: computer-go: Go Devil

[Amol Dharmadhikari <dharam2@xxxxxxxxx>]

Isnt this discussion of which game is harder rather pointless? I mean we
are comparing apples and oranges here. I dont see at all how you can
compare chess and go ratings. The mistake which I see in Chess(i dont
know enough Go) is that at the top level(of Garry Kasparov or Anand),
Chess ratings are an accurate representation of the actual player
strength relative to the rest of the field, but as we come lower in the
range of 2500-2600 it certainly is not!

Also comparing it to Go is a totally different thing altogether. It is
like saying that biology is harder than physics(making a stupid
assumption) and hence Francis Crick is more brilliant than Albert
Einstien. But why compare them in the first place?

None of us know enuff to be the mythical Chess-God/Devil or
Go-God/Devil. They are just abstractions for us as we dont know bad we
are relative to the perfect player. Then how does their existance help us
in this discussion? Everyone is making outrageous claims about how top
GMs would fare against a perfect player but the truth is that they are
all unverifiable. 

Regards,
Amol


> 
> I concede that I don't know how close to mastery GO players are.
> I just know that humans are very far away in CHESS.   There seems
> to be some belief that humans are closer to Go mastery than they
> are to Chess mastery which could be true.   But my assumption is
> that Go is a better games (deeper, harder to master.)
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
>    From: Compgo123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 01:26:39 EDT
>    MIME-Version: 1.0
>    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>    X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 70
>    Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    Precedence: bulk
>    Reply-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>    Content-Length: 1433
> 
>    Don Dailey said:
>    .................
> 
>    100 ELO points per stone may not be accurate. Actually rating in chess may 
>    not correlate with Go that much at all. Of course on the other hand it may 
>    correlate well. This NEED to be found out. Before we find it out, the merit 
>    of arguement based on this assumption is really hard to evaluate. 
> 
>    You think even a top Go player has two stone handicap there is still may ways 
>    for his opponent (with ability similar to God) to win the game. Before one 
>    can make this statement, one need to know the degree of the top Go players 
>    mastering the game. For example, if a top Go player can enumerate all 
>    possible meaningful ways the game plays out given a two stone handicap and he 
>    finds no way to win the game. Then he can play God and win with two stone 
>    handicap. Of course the question then becomes that do top Go players master 
>    the game that well? Well it seems they do. At least this is what they feel.
> 
>    To counter above arguement, one may say if they master the Go game that well 
>    then why the outcome of a game is often so uncertain. The answer of this 
>    question lies in the design of the game. For example two swimmer got the same 
>    time in a 50 meter race. This is because the accuracy of the clock. If the 
>    distance is measured to the accuracy of 1 nm, then the possibility of two 
>    swimmer get the same time is greatly reduced. In one sense, the difference in 
>    score is amplified.
> 
>    Dan Liu
>