I think the computers will improve more than John during the course of the next year. Progress has been rapid recently.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Don Dailey <[email protected]> wrote: > I know that everyone at this point thinks John is all washed up for this > kind of match, but I don't agree. > > Basically we have concluded based on a mere 3 games that John Tromp was > "crushed" by the computer as if there was no hope had the match continued. > If the first 2 games had been a loss but John had won the last game, > we probably would be viewing it slightly more rationally - as John having a > chance. > > It's probably not very practical for logistical reasons, but a match like > this should really played with a lot more than 3 games. This was fun, > but only proved what we already knew and nothing more - that computers are > now dan players. > > A ten game match also would not be enough, but it would certainly be far > better for a more educated guess about reasonable expectations. Would it > have been 9 to 1? Would it have been a close match? > > Imagine that both John and the computer were perfect evenly matched with > each having a 50/50 change of winning each game. The likely score would > have been 2-1 with a 3-0 quite possible too, despite perfect equality of > the players and yet we are acting almost as if this was clear proof that > John is washed up and can no longer compete. Had John won 2-1 how > would we be talking about this? Probably we would be saying that > computers still have a long way to go while criticizing or laughing at some > of it's "gaffes." > > So seriously, let's not make more of this than it actually is. > > Don > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Michael Williams < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> John, thank you for doing this! But with all due resepect, you have been >> eclipsed and we need a new challenger. For next year (or whenever) I hope >> that person is as reasonable and sane as John has been. Not everyone is >> cut out for the quirks of the man-machine matches. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Darren Cook <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > (i) MC winning percentages (by Many Faces of Go) >>> > http://www.althofer.de/zen-tromp-04-percents.jpg >>> > >>> > (ii) Traditional territory scores (by Many Faces of Go) >>> > http://www.althofer.de/zen-tromp-02-territory.jpg >>> >>> I think that 2nd link should have been: >>> http://www.althofer.de/zen-tromp-04-territory.jpg >>> >>> (but, in his defense, Ingo was posting at 5am :-) >>> >>> Darren >>> http://dcook.org/gobet/ >>> >>> -- >>> Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer >>> >>> http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) >>> http://dcook.org/blogs.html (My blogs and articles) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Computer-go mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
