Life In 19x19

robinz, you're right. ^_^;;

My bad!

Magicwand wrote:i can not understand why people still think machine has a chance against human player.
in my opinion machine is around 3k if the player expose their weakness.

i remember 20 years ago i played against manyface 9 stone handycap.
my whole object were to kill every group on the board.
I WAS SUCCESSFUL exposing!

killing everything on the board is hard but winning is too easy.
unless machine make major update on their weakness it is too easy beat machine.

You're applying linear logic to what is predominantly an exponential field.

shapenaji wrote:

Magicwand wrote:i can not understand why people still think machine has a chance against human player.
in my opinion machine is around 3k if the player expose their weakness.

i remember 20 years ago i played against manyface 9 stone handycap.
my whole object were to kill every group on the board.
I WAS SUCCESSFUL exposing!

killing everything on the board is hard but winning is too easy.
unless machine make major update on their weakness it is too easy beat machine.

You're applying linear logic to what is predominantly an exponential field.

what i believe is that computer go get's harder to program exponentially as rank goes up.

Magicwand wrote:what i believe is that computer go get's harder to program exponentially as rank goes up.

just like it gets harder to improve for humans when their rank goes up .

increasing difficulty will slow down computer improvemtnt, but they will improve when people keep investingh time in them

robinz wrote:

LocoRon wrote:For your statistical "1d vs 2d with 1d winning 1/3 of the games", the 1d would always be black and there would be no komi.

Really? I always thought the situation where the weaker player plays black with no komi, when the players are 1 rank apart, was the standard way of arranging what is effectively a "1 stone handicap" - so in theory would be expected to give the two players equal winning chances, as in any handicap game. I thought the figure of 1/3 winning chance for the weaker player applied only to even games (with whatever is currently thought to be the "correct" value of komi).

I'm not 100% sure about this (I'm relatively new to go), but it seems logical to me. Can anyone else comment? (I don't care whether it's to back me up or tell me I'm wrong )

It is more complicated than this.

in general a 2 dan has an average ELO rating of 2200
and a 1 dan a rating of 2100

On the difference in ELO rating (100 )
under normal situations the lower player is supposed to win 36.3% so around 1 in 3 games (33%)

This is for even games as they are normally played (with nothing done to compensate the rating difference)

see
http://senseis.xmp.net/?EloRating
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system

willemien wrote: It is more complicated than this.

in general a 2 dan has an average ELO rating of 2200
and a 1 dan a rating of 2100

On the difference in ELO rating (100 )
under normal situations the lower player is supposed to win 36.3% so around 1 in 3 games (33%)

This is for even games as they are normally played (with nothing done to compensate the rating difference)

see
http://senseis.xmp.net/?EloRating
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system

The ratings you mention are those as used by the EGF, but the EGF does not use the basic Elo rating system as it is used in Chess. FOr an overview on how the EGF version works, and a table of predicted winning percentages, see: EGFRatingSystem

For 2d vs 1d, the EGF predicts that the 1d will win 26.9% of games. But those numbers are not necessarily correct. According to the EGF database historic records at EGFWinningStatistics, 1 dans won 37.6% of their games against 2 dans. Of course, those statistics are biased upwards by the widespread use of McMahon tournaments. Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and 1 in 3 games is not an unreasonable rough estimate.