The only issue is that I don't know if GnuGo is representative of 19x19 to 9x9 go strength. I am interested in knowing how a human 19x19 scales down to 9x9 play. It's well known that programs scale up poorly.
However, this data should still be quite useful. - Don Alain Baeckeroot wrote: > Le mardi 4 décembre 2007, Don Dailey a écrit : > > >> For 9x9 ELO works better. For 19x19 it's less clear cut. The >> handicap system appears to be a good system at 19x19 and has the very >> nice merit of allowing grossly mismatched players to compete. I >> think the two systems can be married by adding a fixed offset per stone >> handicap to your ELO. >> >> > > Stats from official european go federation, on 150 000 games nearly solves > the problem of doing ELO vs handicap matching. > http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/statev.html > > Just need to find one anchor, lets says gnugo , rated 6k on kgs in 2007-11... > > Alain > > PS i posted this link some times on the list, but nobody seems to > consider it is useful (except Sylvain Gelly ;-) > I would be glad if someone could explain to me why this does not solve the > problem. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
