Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:But imagine what it would do for the game if all computers sold came with a built in go game.

Honestly, I'd guess not very much.

oren wrote:I'm not arguing that bots will make your play better or worse, I would just prefer to see people playing people. If people just play bots, I think we have an even harder time getting more people to play go.

I always felt that if go software had a better "reputation", more people would eventually end up on the go servers or at clubs.

The widespread belief is that go programs play at a level that's just slightly more advanced than that of a human beginner, and that anyone who practices a little can beat them after a few weeks. That may have been true 20 years ago, but it's not now, but even some of the common books make that claim, and on forums one can read that bots teach bad habits, ergo, they must be bad (it's not what is meant, but it falsely seems to imply that). So, someone who might be interested in go, but doesn't have anyone who plays in their circle of friends or family, downloads Fuego or GnuGo, thinking since computers are so bad, they should do at least OK.

They get wiped off the board. Okay, well, maybe some studying will help. They read a bit more, grasp the concept of living groups and may even learn how to score, but any newfound enthusiasm gets smashed quickly because they still get owned by the software they have been told plays so badly that anyone can beat it. They can't, so they feel hopeless. What's the chance that they'll play someone on the internet and, in their view, make a fool of themselves, since everyone except themselves can reportedly beat go programs? (Plus the general "totally lost" feeling of new players when confronted with an empty board and no good idea what to even do.)

Compare this to chess programs. Everyone has known for years that the best computer programs beat the best human chess players. Someone just starting out my try playing against GnuChess, but since it's widely known that computer opponents are really strong, there's no shame in losing. No doubt other human chess beginners will be in the same boat, so why not seek them out online or at a club?

oren wrote:

shapenaji wrote:I think we may be past the point where we can say that playing bots will create critical weaknesses in your play. Certainly you may not have familiarity against certain strategies, but that's no different than if you have a strong player at your club whose style and lessons dictate a lot of your learning.

I'm not arguing that bots will make your play better or worse, I would just prefer to see people playing people. If people just play bots, I think we have an even harder time getting more people to play go.

As I recall, strong chess computers actually increased the number of people playing chess. Give people a sandbox where they can get comfortable and after a while they'll go out looking for more.

People have such a hard time wrapping their head around the large scale forces at work on a go board, that I think a practice tool as ubiquitous as chess software is ideal.

oren wrote:Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can also just set up dan level accounts on Tygem or wbaduk and start from 3d.

Yep, a good (if arguably unfair) way to play stronger players in even games. Might also explain why there's a bit of rank inflation at around the 2k-5d level on Tygem/Wbaduk (i.e. KGS players frequently report being 2 stones stronger on Tygem)

Mivo wrote:......
I always felt that if go software had a better "reputation", more people would eventually end up on the go servers or at clubs.

The widespread belief is that go programs play at a level that's just slightly more advanced than that of a human beginner, and that anyone who practices a little can beat them after a few weeks. That may have been true 20 years ago, but it's not now, but even some of the common books make that claim, and on forums one can read that bots teach bad habits, ergo, they must be bad (it's not what is meant, but it falsely seems to imply that). So, someone who might be interested in go, but doesn't have anyone who plays in their circle of friends or family, downloads Fuego or GnuGo, thinking since computers are so bad, they should do at least OK.

They get wiped off the board. ........

OK, you have just spelled out a need. But that's a separate topic so I will start on, characteristics of the available go playing programs. That should include things like .......

a) Suitability for whom. Some of these can be adjusted downward in playing strength so as to be useful for beginners. Others cannot, or there is a minimum strength level possible.

b) How best used? You can learn bad habits from those programs that have habits that are bad (or modes in which that is true) but not necessarily under all conditions of use. A program that might make a poor opponent weakened so that you can play it even (because not like a human, bad habits) might be perfectly OK if set stronger enough so that you must take several handicap stones.

c) Cost (not all are free). And that should include what you get for that price (are future upgrades free or reduced price?).

d) Remember, hardware does matter. In describing the strength of these programs we should include "when running on what". By and large the crunch power of the hardware and the time allowed the computer per move are inversely proportional for a given level of strength.

And we should not assume that all alternatives to a computer opponent are available to everybody. Some of us might live far from the nearest go club. Some of us might have limited bandwidth that can be tied up playing a game on line (for example, that would be a very long time for me to commit to uninterupted use of this phone line) or limited times around that limitation (on two days a week when our small town library is open I could take a laptop there and use their fast connection)

To come back to the original question -

I recently bought Champion Go ~CrazyStone~ for Android (On sale for $2.99, I think regular price is $7.99 -- Either way I figured it was significantly cheaper than a book so worth a try). On a dual core 1 GHz tablet I would estimate it's strength at the strongest level to be about 2-3k KGS, and I can't recall it ever taking more than 30 seconds for a move. I would imagine the computer version is stronger on just about anything considered "standard" hardware these days (If the large-cluster version on KGS is about 4d, you can probably try to scale where your hardware fitss on that spectrum to get an approximation) -- though the computer version is significantly more expensive, I think it may have more features too though, I can't speak for it...

I don't have any answers to the update questions mentioned up thread.