Re: computer-go: proof

[Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:10 AM 9/25/00 +0200, you wrote:
>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.

Oh well your go players lose all knowledge for the living world when
they die. chessplayers leave at least a few games. 

>> Kasparov
>> is probably better in chess as any go player ever was in go.
>
>How do you measure such?

Read what i wrote in that email below.

>> 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. 

In chess you can go beyond that. It has happened that Kasparov had
prepared games up to 30 moves deep.

He's not doing that on his own. He has a whole team to do it with him.

>--rj
>
>
>
>