On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 13:34 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
> Don,
>
> I agree that more time generally leads to better moves. Also in Go.
> Where I think Go differs from Chess is the qualitative difference
> between a move that was thought about for 10 sec. or 2 hrs. is much
> smaller in Go than in Chess. And that's really because of the
> different nature of the games. Chess really is a tactical game, so
> looking at more positions improves the results considerably. To move
> up 200 ELO points in Go is usually not achieved by looking at more
> positions but by acquiring new concepts. To acquire a new concept in
> just a few hours is a rare thing. Some of these concepts would maybe
> take years to acquire if there wasn't someone to teach it to them.
The gist of my whole argument is that the human brain is not limited.
The
idea that after you think a few moments and then you are at a dead end
is preposterous and I'm glad you agree with me on this.
I would like to say that I don't think this has anything to do with
tactics.
When you are in a tactical situation that might well be where the time
is best
spent but when you are not, you spend your time on what is most
appropriate.
I take a more meta-view of what a new concept is and I
think the human brain is capable of acquiring them as you go. Indeed,
the
process of study and experience is a farce if you are gaining new
concepts
as you do this. And you can gain new insights or concepts in a single
short study period.
I know about this, I do it in chess and it's not always about tactics.
I experience "waves of understanding" the longer I look at a chess
position
I do not understand. This happens in endgames for example where
tactics
is not much of an issue. I consider a given strategy with the belief
that
it is winning, but I continue to "discover new things" that cause me to
modify my understanding. It is sometimes very like a process of
elimination.
It is not pure tactical thinking - it's noticing that certain things
can't
happen given the current configuration. Or using your imagination to
try to determine how to compel the opponent to let you have your desired
configuration.
I can't believe go players don't have this thrill, because it's a
wonderful
process. The move or course that you thought was most productive
proves to
be wrong and you continue to narrow your focus. If this isn't true in
Go and it's only about pattern recognition, (your either know the answer
or
you don't) then GO is a sterile uninteresting game. But I don't
believe that.
> You wrote:
> If you are given twice as much thinking time, there is bound to be
> 2 or
> 3 moves in a 300 move game where it makes a difference in the quality
> of those 2 or 3 moves. And that is worth 1 or more ranks of strength.
I don't know the exact formula, that was a "for instance" type of
statement.
In go I suspect extra time gives you MANY moves to improve on, not just
2 or
3 and perhaps that is worth a rank.
> Two or three superior moves would most likely be worth a few points,
> not a whole rank. Two or three blunders, that would maybe make a rank
> or two difference. But I really don't think doubling the thinking
> time would reduce the number of blunders by 2 or 3. And definitely
> not another 2 when doubling again. (Also I think the numbers are
> deceiving, the vital part of a Go game rarely lasts more than 200
> moves and that is only 100 moves each. And many moves are forced.)
> The example you gave about studying a position for two hours and then
> showing it to someone 600 ELO points stronger. I think in Go someone
> who is 600 ELO points stronger can let the other player think about
> every move for a whole day and still beat him using on average just
> 10-20 sec. per move. It doesn't scale the way it does with Chess.
I don't believe this at all. But it's difficult to argue about it
since it is extremely difficult to construct a fair experiment in this
regard. But I continue to be amazed that so many people think GO
cannot be approached in a methodical logical way or that the human
mind cannot break it down with the application of time and effort.
> I must admit this opinion is not very scientifically based, just on
> personal observations of seeing players of many different levels play.
My opinion is based on watching these same arguments happen in computer
chess over the last 30 years. Almost every good player believed chess
involved skills that could not be programmed or reasoned out given
enough time. I have also observed (over the years) that even the
weak slow computers of yesterday could beat very strong players at
speed chess, but not stand any chance whatsoever at long time controls.
And it's well known that Grandmasters play speed-chess several hundred
points stronger than weaker players - lot's of anecdotes about strong
players given 1 minute for the whole game and still crushing weaker
players given 20 minutes for the whole game. This never shocked me
but always sounded impressive. 20 to 1 is only about 300 ELO not to
mention the stronger player is getting his move ready on the weaker
players time. This was just a silly parlor trick. Of course naive
onlookers believed that NO AMOUNT OF TIME was enough, such is the
case with parlor tricks. You see, everything you say about GO in
this regard was said about chess years ago and turned out to be limited
understanding of how it really works. In our macro world we don't
reason about such things very well if they involve time periods and
actions that are not close to our own experiences.
It's impossible to construct an experiment where you get see what I am
talking about - how do you give 1 person a few seconds and another
person
an hour without the first person benefiting too?
I do have a way to construct a meaningful experiment. It's not a
perfect
experiment but it works like this:
1. Arrange for a group of players of widely varying levels to play in
a massive tournament, each in front of a computer monitor.
2. Each contestant plays many games simultaneously. They are
presented
with a position from one of the games and they are informed of the
time control. They can allocate their time as they please.
3. A person is allowed to ponder on one move, but after he makes it
he
is immediately presented with a position from one of his other
games.
4. Of course the time controls for each player and game will vary
according
to strength. I suggest that you handicap all games by giving 3X
more
time per rank.
5. The time controls cannot be so long as to seriously affect your
ability
to focus and concentrate. I admit that it's impossible to stay
focused
at 1 hour per move for many hours in a row. This is where my
theory
breaks down - but in principle I'm assuming that each hour spent
thinking
is fully focused - whether it's just 5 seconds or 5 hours.
The idea is to keep each player busy so that he isn't thinking on YOUR
time
or visa-versa.
So if I'm playing a player 3 ranks
higher, he might be given 2 seconds per move, I estimate that I might
require about 3-4 minutes to equalize, but while I am thinking he is
busy
on some other move, getting little advantage from my thinking time. I
say "little" because I believe the human brain still thinks about the
position even while performing other tasks. But I think this
experiment
would be fair enough.
There must be something at stake for this experiment to be workable - I
suggest a fixed payoff for each win.
If I were a psychologist researching this very issue, I would love to
construct such an interesting experiment. But to be meaningful it
would also have to involve a lot of games - perhaps several days worth
of volunteers working in 2 or 3 hour shifts.
By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use
fast time controls because long time controls don't help in Go?
- Don
>
> Mark
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
