>So a small error in the opening or middle game can literally be worth anything >by the time the game ends.
These are my estimates: human pros >= 24 points lost, and >= 5 game-losing errors against other human pros. I relayed my experience of a comparable experiment with chess, and how those estimates proved to be loose lower bounds, and it would not surprise me if these estimates are also far from perfection. I urge you to construct a model that you feel embodies important characteristics, and get back to us with your estimates. -----Original Message----- From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Darren Cook Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 5:15 PM To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo & DCNN: Handling long-range dependency > You can also look at the score differentials. If the game is perfect, > then the game ends up on 7 points every time. If players made one > small error (2 points), then the distribution would be much narrower > than it is. I was with you up to this point, but players (computer and strong humans) play to win, not to maximize the score. So a small error in the opening or middle game can literally be worth anything by the time the game ends. > I am certain that there is a vast gap between humans and perfect play. > Maybe 24 points? Four stones?? 24pts would be about two stones (if each handicap stone is twice komi, e.g. see http://senseis.xmp.net/?topic=2464). The old saying is that a pro would need to take 3 to 4 stones against god (i.e. perfect play). Darren _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
