Hi David, Any opinion either of us have on this is only speculation. Nevertheless, in any kind of science there tends to be unproven conjectures that are widely believed to be true even though nobody has found a rigorous proof. Some of those will turn out to surprise everybody. I have seen widely held beliefs be proven wrong before (the earth is flat is one example.)
Recently I have lost some faith in my belief that 7.0 komi is right on 9x9 with Chinese CGOS style rules. I was never absolutely SURE of it, but I believed it with a high degree of confidence. I still believe 7.0 is correct, but I'm somewhat less sure of this now. This is due to some testing I did with mogo, where at high levels mogo plays more even with 8.5 than 7.5. (black still wins slightly even at 8.5 komi) It's entirely possible, that mogo's style of play does better with black for whatever reason I don't understand. It could be some feature of the game, or even a mogo bug. I am reluctant to draw conclusions based on the performance of self play games of one computer player but this result has cast some doubt for me. - Don David Schneider-Joseph wrote: > Don, > > Interesting thoughts and links. I read through them all. :) > > Some points: I wasn't expressing an opinion as to the degree of > difference between "God's komi" and "Man's komi". 2.5 seems perfectly > reasonable (at least with current levels of skill). > > As far as it being widely believed that proper komi is independent of > board size for all but the smallest boards -- I can't see a decent > argument for assuming this. I can definitely see an argument that > proper komi might *oscillate* around some target as boards get > sufficiently huge, but it seems quite possible that the exact number > of playable points on the board can result in some minor differences > in score even as board sizes get very large, and it seems like it > would take a rigorous proof for one to abandon that reasonable > possibility. > > David > > On Feb 12, 2008, at 12:39 AM, Don Dailey wrote: > >> David Schneider-Joseph wrote: >>> On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Don Dailey wrote: >>> >>>> David Schneider-Joseph wrote: >>>>> On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a "proper >>>>> komi", derived as it is from "the hand of God" (perfect play), will >>>>> invariably be too high for any actual go players which would be an >>>>> interesting match for each other? >>>> I guess it's possible. I don't think it's likely but I guess nobody >>>> can say with 100% certainty what the correct komi really is at any >>>> non-trivial board size. >>> >>> Why not likely? It seems a virtual guarantee to me. By definition, >>> komi is proportional to the value of moving first. Likewise, by >>> definition, your skill is the amount of value you get out of a move. >>> Therefore, better players should play with higher komi. >> Hi David, >> >> It's possible (even easy) to construct positions where one side has a >> win, but the win requires careful accurate play or it loses. Such >> positions may actually be a practical advantage to the losing side if >> two equal players do not understand how to play it. >> >> The opening position in GO is such a position. I believe that if you >> pick the "correct" komi, whatever that may be, it's probably easier for >> white to win. >> >> This would imply an adjustment downward from "god's number." This is >> essentially your argument and I agree with it. >> >> But how much adjustment? This is where we disagree. You seem to >> believe that the adjustment should be quite large. I disagree because >> even though I believe the white pieces are easier to play, I still >> believe that a won position is still an advantage for reasonably >> competent players. A strange consequence of your position is that you >> have to believe that a human player should prefer to start the game from >> a dead lost position. >> >> For instance if 12.0 is God's komi and 9.5 is man's komi, then 9.5 gives >> even chances in a position that is actually lost, and anything higher >> gives white a practical advantage in a dead lost position! >> >> Even though I believe as you do that it takes more skill to equalize >> with white (given the correct komi), I believe that 1/2 point more or >> less gives one side a winning game, and that is enough for players of >> modest skill to have the better winning chances. >> >> It's pretty clear however that white is easier to play ... >> >> If you play random vs random, 3.5 seems to be right komi. Since we >> both agree that komi should be AT LEAST 7.5, this implies that it's >> easier to play the white pieces for a player of limited skill (of course >> assuming komi is set correctly, whatever that may be.) And sure enough, >> if you use weak but not random program, the komi required jumps up very >> quickly. Even very weak programs seem to require about 7.5 komi, if >> they are beyond just weak beginner. >> >> But then even programs enormously stronger still require 7.5 komi. >> >> My feelings on this seem to match at least one source: >> >> Look here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi >> >> Here is an excerpt: >> >> It is widely believed that the correct komi is independent of board size >> for all but the smallest boards. For area scoring, this would give 7 for >> 9x9+, 8 for 8x8, 7 for 7x7, 4 for 6x6, 25 for 5x5 (w cannot live), 0 for >> 4x4, 9 for 3x3, 4 for 2x2 with a superko rule, and 0 for 1x1. (these >> need to be verified) >> >> Despite all of this, I allowed the possibility that it's possible that >> even God cannot win at 7.5 komi. >> >> >> - Don >> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> computer-go mailing list >>> computer-go@computer-go.org >>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> computer-go mailing list >> computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
