[Computer-go] Combinatorics of Go

[Arthur Cater]

I confess I did not think of the existence of correlations. I simply  
thought 1.2% was quite low,
wondered how that could be, and marvelled at how close this simple  
calculation came to
that result. My feathers may deserve some ruffling - but I remain  
obstinately mellow! Anyway,
fwiw, it was my 1.232% of survivors that I thought was on the high  
side. I should read the paper.

Arthur

On Jan 1, 2011, at 5:57 PM, Kahn Jonas wrote:

>> I think you have perhaps misunderstood. As I read it, Arthur was  
>> refering to his own analytic result (1.232) as being "on the high  
>> side", not John's result in the paper. Arthur is implicitly  
>> assuming that John's number is correct (which I think we all are),  
>> and then rationalising what the discrepancy is between his analytic  
>> result and John's. Personally I found his analysis very helpful.
>>
>> The way I read the reply from Jonas, he is similarly is referring  
>> to Arthur's calculation, not John's (specifically he is referring  
>> to Arthur's reasoning), other than that he also is assuming  
>> implicitly that John's calculation is correct.
>
> I cannot speak for Arthur, but my answer was indeed specific to the  
> quick
> and (not so?) dirty estimate by Arthur. I did not refer in any way to
> Tromp's result, nor did I try to get a real estimate.
>
> Jonas
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at dvandva.org
> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go