>I personally think small handicaps in 19x19 might be reasonable because >I think playing good moves is still a dominant factor - at least at the >levels our programs can handle. I would be reluctant to go beyond a >few stones. I don't know what a good number is, but I'll take a >somewhat >educated guess and say 4 stones, because it supposedly corresponds to >almost >400 ELO points - which I have come to think of as a conceptual >"barrier" of superiority. If you are 400 ELO superior your losses >will be rare and in the linear version of the ELO formula 400 is >considered >certain victory (you can't win ELO points from beating someone 400 >points >weaker or more. The linear formula therefore cuts off at 350, so that >you >still get a little bit for beating a weak player.)
Just as an FYI, KGS refuses to do rated games with more than 6 stones. I feel like as I get better at playing go, handicap stones mean more. As a 4k, playing a 10k with 6 stones is rather daunting. When I was a 10k playing a 16k with 6 stones, I didn't worry too much. It may be reasonable to only rate games with up to 4 stones like you suggest, but maybe have higher handicap games occur occasionally just so people can see the conceptual superior barrier at work ;) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
