[Computer-go] Computer Go and EGC 2012

[Stefan Kaitschick]

Once bots are universally accepted to play at a certain level it's not
a big problem.
But I'm pretty sure that no go professional relishes the thought of
beeing a "pioneer" in the sense of beeing the first pro to lose at a
certain handicap level.
In chess, it's been no problem to lose against a bot ever since deep
blue humbled the world champion.

Stefan

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Don Dailey <dailey.don at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Stefan Kaitschick
> <stefan.kaitschick at hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>> I'm with John on this one.
>> Professional pride will prevail.
>> 300$ won't make a pros knees go weak.
>> Much worse would be the slim chance to lose a low handicap game.
>
>
> I did not know that Go players were this vain and fearful.    I know that a
> lot of strong chess players have no problem with putting it on the line but
> I guess I don't understand Go culture.    I had the distinct impression that
> strong Go players were kind of like a more humble versions of Chess players.
>  Kinder and gentler,  perhaps one of those cultural misconceptions on my
> part.
>
> Don
>
>
>>
>> Zen will have to beat a series of pros with 5 stones, before any of
>> them will consider going down to 4.
>> And 2 or 3 stones don't really need to be on the menu at this point.
>> As for Dons risk/reward example: the best way to look at this is as a
>> bankroll management problem.
>> It turns out that bankroll utility is logarithmic.(see kelly staking).
>> So the bet with the lower deviation is actually better in a rational
>> sense.
>>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Stefan
>> _______________________________________________
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go at dvandva.org
>> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at dvandva.org
> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go