On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 23:02 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would not consider it very impressing nor interesting if a fast 10k > program beats strong players on time. It think the stronger player > will win with 10 seconds per move, but lowering the time limit until > the stronger player loses on time is just silly.
It's not silly at all. It's just there is a point in which the mechanics of making a move add too much noise - you can win or lose because you dropped a stone on the floor for instance. I know that even humans vary considerably in strength with time, and I don't mean just blitz moves. The problem is that this is generally not observed because BOTH players usually get the same time so both are handicapped by the clock. We used to play Chess by subtracting or adding 1 minute every time you win or lose a game. This works pretty well if one player isn't too much stronger and it would probably work great if it were not for the fact that the stronger player isn't handicapped as much as you would think - he uses the weaker players extra time. If you could isolate that factor by slowing down time for one of the players, you would have an excellent handicap system. In Chess, humans seem to benefit from time even more than computers, although most peoples intuition is just the opposite. You don't want to play speed chess against a computer and a human would be the favorite at postal chess, say 24 hours per move despite the enormous strength increase this gives a program. Most people are irrational and illogical about all of this, they think humans play "about the same" but it's just a serious perception issue. That's not how it really works. - Don > Dave > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- > Van: dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Datum: donderdag, januari 18, 2007 10:18 pm > Onderwerp: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go > program's rank. > > > Hi, > > > > The challenge to write a go playing program that could beat a > > professional was > > issued before the wide availability of Internet Go Servers, and > > broadband > > access. > > > > Under these new conditions, it is trivial to write such a program, > > provided > > the game takes place on a server, and at time limits chosen by the > > program. > > For example a random point playing program could choose time > > limits of half > > a second per move, sudden death. > > > > Therefore I suggest that a program's strength can (if needed) be > > expressed as > > the shortest time limits that a player of a standard strength (eg > > Pro. 1 dan) > > would be willing to play the program at, given an equal > > reward/loss regime > > (ie the chance of either winning would be 0.5). > > > > The format of time limits for such games would need to be > > standardised, for > > example - it could be decided that only limits of the type 'sudden > > death, x > > number of seconds per move' were allowed. > > > > In that case, 'x' could be used as a measure of the program's > > strength (as an > > abreviation for 'would beat a standard strength player half the > > time at x > > seconds per move') > > > > Of course the strength of a 'standard strength' Go player varies, > > and > > professional one dans would likely be unwilling to be beaten in > > ultra blitz > > games for the benefit of computer go programmers, so 'amateur 1 > > dan' is a > > realistic idea for a standard strength go player. > > > > dan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/
