Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play

["Frank de Groot" <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Erik van der Werf" <E.vanderWerf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Pattern matching - example play


> I will not go into the physics further as it is OT, if you really want
> to know more about these issues we can discuss it off line.

What makes you think you can enlighten me about these issues?


> How do you know that it approaches the theoretical maximum (except of
> course that it goes up)? What is the theoretical maximum for pro games?

I extrapolate :)


> No, computers are still too weak for that.

Not (very) relevant.
The only interesting thing is to notice a statistical advantage on 9x9, that
should be possible.
A computer plays equally well for W & B so the differences can be
statistically significant and that's all we need to know.


> Try it, you might be surprised :-)

I don't consider 9x9 Go to be Go :)
It's another game. I am not interested in it as I think it's easier than
chess.


> Well ofcourse the statistics I found don't prove anything. However, if
> at some point we could prove that the center opening is inferior on a
> small board, such as 9x9, it seems unlikely that it would become better
> when the board size grows further.

AFAIK there is evidence/suspicion that Tengen on 9x9 is the best move (read
on Sensei's)
I found a nice "logical" postulation as to why and I think it's indeed
(very) logical that it is the best move.
But who cares, it has nothing to do with the subject.

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/