3 ms·
My point is that 8:2 isn't much better. Not compared to the range of skills available. If someone beats me 8:2, that puts fairly strong bounds on their skill le
by philh 11y ago
My point is that 8:2 isn't much better. Not compared to the range of skills available. If someone beats me 8:2, that puts fairly strong bounds on their skill level, such that most players would either beat both of us or lose to both of us.
Another way to look at it, if Ke beats Lee 8:2 then Lee-plus-four-stones probably beats Ke more than half the time. (I'm pretty confident about four stones; I suspect two or three would suffice.) Four stones is significant, but it's still a fairly narrow gap to say "I think AG falls within this skill range" until you've seen it lose a game.
- codehotter 11y agoI get your point, but four stones is beyond ridiculous. Two stones is already a really large handicap. At two stones, Ke would have no chance whatsoever. Games at this level are decided by a few points. The closer two players come to optimal play, the harder it is to be very much more efficient than your opponent over the course of a game. To be so much more efficient, at this level, that you could overcome a 4 stone handicap is unthinkable. I would very much like to see computers improve to the level that they could take on a top professional giving a 2 stone handicap. That would be a sight!
- iopq 11y agoKe Jie would lose to or at best be even with Lee Sedol with one stone handicap (taking white with no komi) because his ELO is not THAT much higher. Since Lee Sedol has a better record against Park Junghwan who also has wins vs. Ke Jie etc. ELO is a better predictor than just 10 games in a vacuum.