Re[2]: computer-go: perfect play

[Roland <goprog@xxxxxxx>]

Hello Matt,

Thursday, September 28, 2000, 11:03:57 AM, you wrote:
<snip>
MG> picture looks very different.  For humans, it may be that Go is little more difficult
MG> than chess to master, but it doesn't seem greatly so and it is actually easier for a
MG> child to learn and easier to become novice-proficient.  Based on all the discussion
<snip>

It's certainly an interesting question which of the two games is more
complex. I honestly think that chess is the more complex game meaning
that it is harder to achieve perfect play with it.
The advantage that Go has, which makes it simpler is a kind of
stability. For example once you have a living group, this group will
live till the end of the game, and so will all connected groups do.
You don't have to read any moves ahead to know it. To
say it more generally, in Go it's unlikely that you will lose the game
due to an amazing tactical combination from your opponent, except if a
huge group will be killed. You build up strategic advantage that will
be maintained because of the stability of the game. And a good player
can know what groups of him are alive and how much of the board he
owns without having to read many moves ahead. So even against a
perfect player he will play reasonably, being able to maintain a large
area of the board for him.

   In chess we have a different situation. Now matter how great the
strategic advantage seems to be, a great tactical combination may
destroy it. A slight mistake on your side may be enough. And in
chess there is no stability, a weakness in a position "propagates"
making the global position weak also. And here comes the problem,
because of this instability in chess, you can never be sure if there
isn't an amazing tactical combination of say 40 or more moves that
will destroy your position...So a human player will always be in great
disadvantage against a perfect player who knows the complete game
tree.

Or saying it in another way: In Go mistakes will cost you some amount
of territory, which a good player could keep small by playing safe. In
chess a mistake will cause you to lose the game.

Is this complete nonsense what I'm saying?


-- 
Best regards,
 Roland                            mailto:goprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx