At 12:06 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote:
... You mentioned that you think GO is different that Chess, ..
yes, i think so.
In Chess, good players will spend hours a... they will be able to
find a better
move
yes, they probably will.
...
It seems really odd to me that you are incapable of
doing this in GO, or that the games are too different.
maybe it's my poor old brain, but the middle of the game is so
complicated (for me), that after some amount of time i get
diminishing returns. it gets *really* complicated. it's not just
reading (lookahead), it's judgement as to how this particular line of
battle will have an effect on other battles.
If that's the case, then I prefer Chess, it is a far
deeper game.
i don't think so.
I would find any game boring if it was
so limited that there is nothing to think about that
can't be seen in just a few moments.
there is always stuff to think about, but it's not clear it will be
of any value.
In every game of Chess (or GO) puzzles of varying levels
of difficulty are presented. ...
There will always be a few that are too difficult to
solve in the time available but you are perfectly
capable of solving given enough (or a little more)
time.
these are the moves that i am thinking about (these are the ones
where the time will be spent)
Even if only 1 or 2 positions per game are
like this, ...
there are many in each game.
... But 1 or 2 positions per game
is probably all that's required to move you up a rank.
yes, but many of these are so complicated that more than some amount
of time won't help (imho)
Maybe in your case it's different. ...
it could just be me.
>From your own description you imply that you are a GO player
like this. You are convinced that you can't produce
a move higher than your strength level no matter how
much time you are given. ...
don't quite grok this.
...
Or are you just saying GO isn't like this? You
either are strong enough to know the best move
or you will never be able figure it out no matter
how much time you are given.
most of us are not strong enough to find the best move that a pro
would. if you watch a pro analyze a high dan game, you will find that
there are perhaps a dozen times in the game where the player played
in the wrong *area* of the board. my philosophy is to try to make a
good move in the best area as opposed to the best move in the wrong area.
my point is that the effect of time is very non-linear. if i am
playing a player who is say 4 stones weaker in an even game. giving
him 20000 minutes and me 20 is not going to change who wins. there is
some range of time say 20 minutes to 200 minutes (for me) with no
byo-yomi. i won't have time to think too much at 20 minutes, but
doubt that could use more than 200 minutes effectively.
thanks
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 17:29 -0800, Ray Tayek wrote:
> At 08:45 PM 1/18/2007, you wrote:
> >On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:05 -0800, Ray Tayek wrote:
> > >
> > > yes. i would easily give my opponent *much* more time than a few
> > > handicap stones. the effect of time making someone (or thing) play
> > > better (or worse) is non-linear and probably only effective over some
> > > small range of time and talent.
> >
> >I think the formula is probably similar to UCT or Chess, but even more
> >so for humans.
>
> sorry, no clue about the formula.
>
> > Double the amount of time you have, and significantly
> >increase the quality of the move. I don't think this is a limited
> >effect over a narrow range of time.
>
> i suspect that it is in humans. i am only a 1-dan player. but during
> most of the game:
>
> if i have a reasonable amount if time (say 1 hour or so), doubling or
> trippling the time to think about one move (or for the whole game)
> does not make any difference (but i have been playing for 40 years).
> i tend to reach my limit of reading (look ahead).
>
> i would cut my time to 40 minutes for 2 stones and play for money. 30
> minutes for 3 stones, 25 minutes for 4 stones, 20 minutes for 5 stones.
>
> giving most 1-dans more than an hour is not going to help their game
> that much. we only play so well. pro's can probably defeat this since
> they can make the game complicated.
>
>
> >I understand chess better than go, I used to be a tournament player.
> >Give me time to think and I can produce moves
> >of enormously higher quality over tournament time-controls. I know
> >this for a fact. I seriously doubt it is different for go.
>
> i don't play chess. but it seems different to me in go.
>
> >...
> >It probably is non-linear like you say - even in the more limited game
> >of Chess, the curve was amazingly linear (every doubling in time seemed
> > to give a fixed amount
> >of ELO strength improvement) ...
>
> well, chess is close to 1+ battles. more look ahead should help in
> some linear way perhaps. go goes off the rails fast when you consider
> interactions of say the corner josekis to other corners.
>
> >As far as talent is concerned, some chess experiments seem to indicate ...
> >I think it might work the same with humans - ... ...
>
> don' t know enough to comment.
>
> >So I think strength in humans is very much the same - perhaps even more
> >scalable than with computers - subject of course to human frailties of
> >attention span, sleep time, ability to focus for long periods of time,
> >etc.
>
> i play 20-25 minute games on yahoo sometimes when i am bored. these
> are moderately fast. some people play insanely fast (too me). like 10
> minutes (this is total time. no byo-yomi). ignoring what a group of
> people might be able to do, i suspect that having more than two hours
> of time per game for amateurs is the limit of usefulness. a pro could
> probably benefit from a much larger increase in time. ...
---
vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
