Re: computer-go: Perfect play

[Heikki Levanto <heikki@xxxxxx>]

Roland <goprog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   In chess you either lose a game or win it(or draw it). In Go you
>   also win or lose or draw, BUT, if you lose, the question is, by how
>   much did you lose, and according to that amount you can adjust
>   handicap stones to try to make the score equal in the next game.

I do not quite agree.

For the first, good go players tend not to maximize the amount they win by,
because it gives them nothing extra. If they are well ahead, they tend to
use their moves in reducing risks rather than maximizing points, for example
by defending groups that are already strong. Conversely, if they are behind,
they do not try to reduce the loss (unless they thing they can catch up that
way), but will often take great risks (leave weaknesses behind, and/or make
unreasonable attacks) for the off-hand chance that they might pull off
something. If this looks unlikely they resign.

>   And in addition to that, in Go we have a kind of stability which we
>   don't have in chess, which means you can build up a strategically
>   safe position and guarantee a certain amount of territory to you
>   without having to know the full game tree.

yes, individual moves in go may have a smaller effect. But there are more of
them.

>   In other words, in chess no matter how close to perfect play you
>   are, you will still lose any game, because the one little mistake is
>   enough to make you lose. 

Not necessarily true. There are also minor mistakes in chess. In the endgame
you may have a "strategically safe" position of having enough material to
guarantee your victory. Still, you may make a move that does not lead to
victory as quickly and effectively as a better move. 


> This means 100% loss to the perfect player.
Yes, but this applies to go, and to any full-information game that is
complex (or ill-understood) enough to guarantee that humans do not play
perfectly all the time.

>   In Go the closer you come to perfect play
>   by the lesser points you will lose, so you can eventually guarantee
>   that you will win if you get one or two stones handicap.
>   

One way to look at handicaps could be that the stronger player agrees to
make a number of mistakes by passing his first few moves. To balance, he is
supposed to be the stronger player, so the weaker one is likely to catch up
with his own mistakes during the game.

I am getting the feeling that theoreticall correct go will be quite a
different game from the kind of go that is played between mere humans. 

- Heikki


-- 
Heikki Levanto     LSD Levanto Software Development   heikki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
               "In Murphy we Turst"