Go Seigen : was Re[2]: computer-go: Please stop this pointless and blasphemous discussion !!!

[Matthew John Saffell <saffell@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please, this list is for discussion of computer go, not someone's notions
of blasphemy.  Robert is correct, GoDevil and GoGod are well defined
technical terms apart from any theology, and I even posted the general
idea of the definitions in an early post.  Nobody is trying to step on
anybody's notion of god, we are discussing ideas using the technical
jargon of the field.  Please read the posts with this in mind and practice
a little tolerance.  

Back to the subject of "perfect" play - Does anybody have any idea how
long professionals have claimed to be within a few stones of perfect?  I
suspect that top professional play today is superior to that of
professionals a hundred year ago (yes I know, impossible to prove) -- not
because today's players are smarter, but because the style or technology
wielded by these pros is superior.  The innovations of Go Seigen and
Kitani, and the influence-oriented styles coming out of Korea must have
ratcheted up the top play a couple stones (in some objective sense).
In other words, a top player 100 years ago would still be a top player
today, but only because he adjusted his style of play to incorporate
advances in Go theory (or advances in Go "technology").

In Go Seigen's latest book, he talks about san-ren sei formations.  Turns
out there are 3 distinct variations - 1) the traditional 3 star points on
the side, 2) 2 star points on the side plus the tengen, or center point,
and 3) diagonal star points and the tengen.  Go Seigen claims that the
third alternative is the best!!  But as far as I know nobody actually
plays this variation.  But assuming Go Seigen is correct, then this
"technology" properly used surely increases the level of top play towards
perfect play, if not by a full handicap stone, then at least by a few komi
points.  

The thing is that you can't keep this innovation a secret, if you want to
use it in a game, so suddenly everyone knows about it and incorporates the
technology into their game play, and it looks like nothing has changed -
everybody still has the same rank as before, but in some objective sense,
the top Go play has become closer to perfect.  And the top players still
think they are within a stone or two of perfect, even though they should
now be within half a stone of perfect.  :-)

Knowing professionals, they've probably been claiming almost perfect play
for hundreds of years.  And they may be almost perfect with respect to the
"technology" they have available at the time, but the technology is always
evolving (presumable towards perfect play), as any technology does when
you've got so many people working on the same problem.


Matt




On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Roland wrote:

> Hello Robert,
> 
> Monday, September 25, 2000, 6:22:43 AM, you wrote:
> 
> RJ> "GoGod" and "GoDevil" are specialized and well-defined terms in game
> RJ> theory just like "tree" is such a term. As such these are meant to be 
> 
> Well, I could agree with you if people really used the exact
> term(GoGod and NOT GOD), although I still have an objection which I
> will explain later. The fact is, that some people used the term
> God, which has a strong connotation in normal language.
> Now to my second objection I think the idea to call a perfect player a "GoGod" was
>  a poor one, because
> this term was obviously inspired by the concept of God. The inventor of
> the term GoGod seems to be unaware that God is not only omniscient but
> also almighty(this of course will also vary according to the specific
> cultural background as another reader pointed out). As such he
> might not only know the perfect move but
> also interfere in the playing of the opponent(either human or
> machine/computer or even Devil) or change the status of the board by
> making pieces appear, disappear at random locations etc...The creator
> of the term GoGod obviously wanted only the quality of
> omniscient.
> 
> RJ> For GoDevil I have not seen other terms except different spellings.
> RJ> For GoGod other terms are used as well:
> RJ> - God
> this term is obviously ambiguous and seems to be the source of our
> misunderstandings.
> 
> RJ> - perfect player
> RJ> - omniscient player
> 
> RJ> - guru
> this term is also ambiguous and from religious background?
> 
> RJ> Definitions for GoGod and GoDevil have been given relying on the 
> RJ> concept of automatons.
> 
> Well this certainly is true, but the question is: have those terms
> been chosen wisely? I think not. I mean, of course you can use any
> word to define whatever you want, but it should somehow make sense and
> preferably not be chosen such as to probably offend people from
> certain cultural backgrounds. For orthodox Jews(which is not my case)
> I think even writing down the word God is already a sin, and as for
> the Christians there is a bible verse which says:
> Deuteronomy 5:11 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God,
> for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
> 
> Otherwise we could also define the term "Yellow pancake" as synonym to
> perfect player, or how about "Little Green Man with pink dots" or
> "BeeBop", "Nasty bitch", "WukWuk", "Upraktiltum"...
> 
> PS: I remember once in the university I had a teacher who wanted to
> show us that a God-like being could count all natural numbers. But he
> was careful and told us he didn't want to offend any religious feelings so
> he decided to use the term Zeus.
> 
> --
> Best regards,
>  Roland                            mailto:goprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
>