RE: computer-go: perfect players

["Fant, Chris" <chris.fant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

They could if the people they play against are also very close to
perfection.  And what I meant by "very close" is very close relative to how
close 9 dan Go players are.   But judging from what you said about your 6x6
checkers experiment (which was very interesting), humans aren't particularly
close in any of the games that we play.  I guess that's we like them.  By
the way, I also agree with your "human arrogance theory."

But one thing I didn't understand about your 6x6 checkers games is, what
"statistical noise" are you talking about?  Did you introduce some
randomness at the beginning of each game?  Like each player makes 1 or two
random moves before actually looking ahead?  If so, it seems like you would
need more than 200 games to discern a 4% advantage of one player over the
other.  I assume that you alternated who when first, so that is only 100
chances to be dealt a decent opening.   Like I said, I find that project
very interesting, for some reason.  I you have any more info about it you
would like to share, or if you have a web page about it, I'd like to check
it out.  Thanks. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Don Dailey [mailto:drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 12:31 PM
To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: computer-go: perfect players



And one other  thing too.  The very   best Chess players  lose LOTS of
games still.  They couldn't be very close to perfection.

Don