Sorry for making an incorrect statement in my original post.
Somehow, my experiences from computer chess and the content of
Martin's very nice amd highly recommended Pamplona-report
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/research/theses-publications/technical-reports/2009/tr09-09
led me to a wrong conclusion.
The transition from 17x17 to 19x19 was much earlier than that (except in Tibet,
which still used 17x17 until recently). Go was played on 19x19 in China at
least as early as 200 AD, although it seems 17x17 go was still played there a
few centuries later. It looks go was always on 19x19 in
I'm always pretty skeptical of subjective statement even by experts - in any
field, but then again I have no basis for confirming or refuting such
things being a weak player myself.It's just the idea that 19x19 is
perfect and 17x17 and 21x21 is crap seems unlikely to me, an admittedly weak
I kind of like to think of games (of perfect information) in terms of what
chance does a top human (or future human) player have a beating or drawing a
player who is omniscient in the game.If that chance is very close to
zero, it's a good game and it doesn't make it a better game to make
Le 15/07/2010 à 19:30, Don Dailey a écrit :
In computer checkers it's all about the openings.
...
So perhaps 9x9 go is starting to be somewhat like that.
...
Never say never, but I believe that even 11x11 Go is deep enough so that
opening preparation could only play a minor role for the
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:45 PM, David Fotland fotl...@smart-games.comwrote:
I think most people would think of these games in terms are how
interesting they are to play against other people. There are a great many
games where people would play poorly against an omniscient player, but are
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com wrote:
I kind of like to think of games (of perfect information) in terms of
what
chance does a top human (or future human) player have a beating or
