Don Dailey wrote:
I don't really know what you mean by "one-dimensional." My
understanding of playing strength is that it's not one-dimensional
meaning that it is foiled by in-transitivities between players with
different styles. You may be able to beat me, but I might be able to
beat someone that you cannot. If that's what you are saying how
does the kyu/dan system handle it that makes it superior to ELO for
predicting who will win? Is there some mechanism that measures
playing styles? I don't see this.
That's what I am saying. The kyu/dan system does not handle it better.
What I THINK you mean is that the gap between various GO ranks is not
consistent in ELO terms. In other words there is no single constant
that works in my simple formula. I definitely think this is probably
the case but surely it can be easily handled by a slightly more
sophisticated formula that "fits the curve."
This is not what I meant, but I agree.
What I mean is that if human player H beats computer C1 65% of the time,
and computer C2 also beats computer C1 65% of the time, then I would
expect that H would be stronger than C2, especially if both C1 and C2
are MC programs. If it is the case, then it would make it difficult to
compare human scale to computer scale. But that is just my intuition.
For instance, against computers, I estimate that Crazy Stone improved
about 3 stones between this summer and now. But it clearly did not
improve 3 stones on KGS. I vaguely remember that Sylvain also noticed
that MoGo could beat GNU go with a 4-stone handicap, but was only 2
stones stronger than GNU on KGS.
Rémi
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
