Re: computer-go: perfect players

[Nick Wedd <Nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fant, Chris <chris.fant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>It has been said by at least one chess player that they could beat a perfect
>player, given a one pawn advantage.  Has this ever been tried against a
>computer player?  I am interested in knowing how close computer players are
>to a perfect player, how close the best human players are to the perfect
>player and how close the best Go players are to the perfect player.

This has been debated on rec.games.go.

The consensus seems to be that the correct handicap for the best human
to receive when playing a perfect player is about three stones.

The question is complicated by the need to define "the perfect player".
Is it one that makes the best move on the board in each position?  Or
one that can read its opponents mind, and take advantage of the
misconceptions that it finds there?

>  It is
>my conjecture that human and computer chess players are very close to the
>perfect player relative to how close the best Go players are to the perfect
>player.  I believe that Go programs will eventually surpass human players
>and go on to absolutely destroy the best of the best. 

They show no signs of doing this so far.

> I believe this
>because of the complexity of the game.  Computers can't be stopped.  They
>will continue to approach perfect player performance.  What does the group
>think?

They will continue to get better, yes.  There's a way to go.

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd    nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx