I am 3k on KGS and I'd say that I win nearly every game that I
give handicap and lose over half the games that I receive handicap. That would
seem to imply that more handicap should be given near my rank.
That is because the KGS rating system is not based on handicap. It is base
...@computer-go.org namens Don Dailey
Verzonden: zo 7-6-2009 18:10
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] bots and handicaps (Re: New CGOS)
Here is why the handicap system is broken. We can talk about how the ELO
system is broken in another discussion but it is too.
At 1 or 2 stones di
June 7, 2009 11:06:37 AM
Subject: RE: [computer-go] bots and handicaps (Re: New CGOS)
I can’t really agree with this statement. My customers tell me
they would much rather play a challenging even game against an opponent of
their level, than a challenging handicap game against a much stronger
At 1 or 2 stones difference, the handicap system works well.At
greater handicaps it's skewed. The "coincidence" that I'm talking
about is that it works to a reasonable degree at larger handicaps.
The handicap system is based on the idea that no matter what your
level of play, you c
I can't really agree with this statement. My customers tell me they would
much rather play a challenging even game against an opponent of their level,
than a challenging handicap game against a much stronger or much weaker
opponent. This is why version 12 of Many Faces has levels that are
calibra
Pro ranks are assumed to be about 1/3 of a stone; the one stone per rank
formula applies to amateur ranks.
I have watched a pro 8p regularly give three stones to a 6 dan amateur. A
weaker pro might give the same player 2 stones.
Some ( including myself in the past ) have argued that they can
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:02 AM, steve uurtamo wrote:
> > The handicap system is imperfect anyway, it's almost
> > a coincidence that it works as well as it does.
>
> okay, this sounds like chess bias. the handicap
> system *defines* the difference in skill levels in go.
> it's a coincidence th
> The handicap system is imperfect anyway, it's almost
> a coincidence that it works as well as it does.
okay, this sounds like chess bias. the handicap
system *defines* the difference in skill levels in go.
it's a coincidence that something like ELO can match
fairly well to stones. not the oth
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Claus Reinke wrote:
> >The purpose of a handicap games is to allow a 50% chance of either
> >contestant winning. .. Programs do not care,
>
> Are you sure?-) I haven't got round to moving beyond a plain MC bot yet,
> where the effect is rather striking, but less nai
