Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Harri on 01/03/2020 22:00:07
-
I have been playing, or rather trying to play, the game GO. After countless games at the beginners level I have yet to win a game! I play online against the computer and so far I've been hopeless. So...I am absolutely hopeless at Math and am beginning to think maybe the part of the brain that deals with math is also the part of the brain that would help me play a tactical game like Go?
-
For a computer, GO is more complex than chess, as there are far more choices at each turn.
GO requires recognising large-scale patterns.
You may also be playing against Koreans who started playing GO at age 4.
-
As @evan_au says, Go is more about pattern recognition than what we usually think of as maths.
You need to be able to recognise many moves ahead when a particular group of stones are going to be captured and block that capture, or lead your opponent into a situation where you can capture their stones.
Seasoned players will often look at you across the board at a very early stage of play and suggest that you have lost, at that point it is usually not worth bothering to play out the inevitable. They have looked further ahead than you can.
-
oh well ... it seems I can't blame my brain or my lack of maths skills! Down to me being a crap go player! As well as not seeing moves ahead of me I think also I'm not quite grasping the point scoring system properly. Sometimes I think it's a close game and the computer passes and I pass then the points revealed say I was well beaten. Hey ho and away we go.
-
Long ago I concluded that the science behind board games suggests you should never play against a computer, at least not if you are a beginner hoping to win. As long as the game is of skill and not luck, there will always be an algorithmic response to at least block whatever moves you make. I think the slow development of chess and Go programs was more concerned with introducing long aggressive strategy rather than response, but these now seem to be near-perfect.
I wonder how computers get on with backgammon? The statistical optimisation of each move looks straightforward, but any strategy can be disrupted by luck at the next throw. If chess is stylised warfare, backgammon seems to be closer to real infantry operations subject to unpredictable weather.
-
Sometimes I think it's a close game and the computer passes and I pass then the points revealed say I was well beaten. Hey ho and away we go.
Yes, if you both pass game ends and it is a good strategy for computer to pass after you if the score shows it is ahead.
It might be worth finding a local club, face to face you could be given explanations of tactics.
-
Try teaching the game to someone else and then see if you can win. That will help to show you whether you've made any progress with it.
-
very interesting
-
Let's get real here
I absolutely demand a board game with super positioning.
That may let us both win.