7 ms·

Would it be accurate to say those 4 stones are about equivalent to one pawn in chess? As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, one pawn is 1/43 of your starting

by T-hawk 13y ago

Would it be accurate to say those 4 stones are about equivalent to one pawn in chess? As a back-of-the-envelope calculation, one pawn is 1/43 of your starting material in chess if the king is included as a four-point fighting piece. Four stones in Go comes to 1/45 of your expected endgame material as half of a 19x19 board.

visarga 13y ago
strength difference between pro 1 dan and pro 9 dan is only about 2 stones
CocaKoala 13y ago
It's hard to make a comparison like that because Go and Chess operate on fundamentally different models. Chess is about capturing a specific piece and putting your opponent in a position where they have no options but to lose; to that end, it's a war of attrition where players slowly lose resources until the game is over (note that I do not play chess at any significant level). In contrast, Go is about capturing territory by fencing it in. Placing four stones on the board is like placing four free fenceposts; you can't really call it a tangible resource like a pawn, but it gives you more of a structure and gives you some influence over the rest of the board. It's possible to remove resources from your opponent in go, since you can surround pieces and capture them. But it's not really an attrition thing like in chess; it's more about territory and control. Trying to make it a numbers game and saying "four stones is 1/45 of your expected endgame material" isn't really relevant to go, because the position of the stones matters so much more than the number. If you have four more pawns than your opponent in a game of chess, that's pretty clearly an advantage; if you have four stones in a totally useless area of the board, or four stones in a really useless configuration, then they're not helpful at all.
- gcp 13y ago
  It's hard to make a comparison like that because Go and Chess operate on fundamentally different models It is very easy. The nature of the game is completely irrelevant. The question is what expectation of winning rate a 4 stone advantage gives to a Go player. For middle ranks, one stone is about 100 ELO-equivalent, or 64% winning rate. (I think it's closer at top dan ranks, would have to look up the statistics). 4 Stones is about 92% chance of winning between equal players. The equivalent in chess is slightly more than 4 pawns advantage, or about a minor piece.
  - CocaKoala 13y ago
    I've read four different versions of the comparison you're describing as "very easy" (four pieces, four pawns, two bishops, a minor piece), so you'll forgive me if I don't find your statement very convincing given the lack of consensus?
    - gcp 13y ago
      You'll notice they didn't support their arguments - they were just guessing.
      - throwaway5752 13y ago
        My limited understanding of go is that the stone placement confers position and tempo, too, which would be undercounted looking at it purely from points.
        gcp 13y ago
        Points (which are a game specific metric) have absolutely no relation to anything I posted. I didn't even mention them at all! It looks purely at game outcomes given the initial starting conditions.
        T-hawk 13y ago
        Yes, you've got the right answer. Forget material and point comparisons which don't really port between the games. The winning percentage conferred by the handicap is what matters. Four stones in Go sounds like a lot less than four pawns in chess, but if that's what the math says by each resulting in the same winning percentage, then the equivalency is true.
  - lemonsrsour 13y ago
    I'm around 2000 ELO in chess and I'd win every single game vs anyone with 4 pawns or a minor piece handicap. Being a single pawn up is usually decisive in chess. Having said that, this whole discussion is pointless, no one ever gives handicaps in chess, because it completely messes up the initial position. Even lacking one or two pawns at start will make it extremely hard to establish any kind of central presence. edit: Apparently kasparov gave a ~2200 guy 2 pawn handicap once, ended up winning 2.5-1.5 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317037/Kasparov-makes-it-a-knight-to-remember.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317037/Kasparov-make....
cjbprime 13y ago
More than a pawn: I think "two bishops" was about right. The value of each stone (as an ability to stake out territory -- sometimes called the "temperature of the board" in game theory) decreases as the game goes on. A stone in each corner is huge, probably worth about 80pts of potential territory. In the middle game, the temperature might drop from 20pts to 10pts per move. So your averaging method doesn't quite work. :)

by T-hawk 13y ago

visarga 13y ago

strength difference between pro 1 dan and pro 9 dan is only about 2 stones

CocaKoala 13y ago

It's hard to make a comparison like that because Go and Chess operate on fundamentally different models. Chess is about capturing a specific piece and putting your opponent in a position where they have no options but to lose; to that end, it's a war of attrition where players slowly lose resources until the game is over (note that I do not play chess at any significant level). In contrast, Go is about capturing territory by fencing it in. Placing four stones on the board is like placing four free fenceposts; you can't really call it a tangible resource like a pawn, but it gives you more of a structure and gives you some influence over the rest of the board. It's possible to remove resources from your opponent in go, since you can surround pieces and capture them. But it's not really an attrition thing like in chess; it's more about territory and control. Trying to make it a numbers game and saying "four stones is 1/45 of your expected endgame material" isn't really relevant to go, because the position of the stones matters so much more than the number. If you have four more pawns than your opponent in a game of chess, that's pretty clearly an advantage; if you have four stones in a totally useless area of the board, or four stones in a really useless configuration, then they're not helpful at all.

gcp 13y ago
It's hard to make a comparison like that because Go and Chess operate on fundamentally different models It is very easy. The nature of the game is completely irrelevant. The question is what expectation of winning rate a 4 stone advantage gives to a Go player. For middle ranks, one stone is about 100 ELO-equivalent, or 64% winning rate. (I think it's closer at top dan ranks, would have to look up the statistics). 4 Stones is about 92% chance of winning between equal players. The equivalent in chess is slightly more than 4 pawns advantage, or about a minor piece.
- CocaKoala 13y ago
  I've read four different versions of the comparison you're describing as "very easy" (four pieces, four pawns, two bishops, a minor piece), so you'll forgive me if I don't find your statement very convincing given the lack of consensus?
  - gcp 13y ago
    You'll notice they didn't support their arguments - they were just guessing.
    - throwaway5752 13y ago
      My limited understanding of go is that the stone placement confers position and tempo, too, which would be undercounted looking at it purely from points.
      - gcp 13y ago
        Points (which are a game specific metric) have absolutely no relation to anything I posted. I didn't even mention them at all! It looks purely at game outcomes given the initial starting conditions.
        T-hawk 13y ago
        Yes, you've got the right answer. Forget material and point comparisons which don't really port between the games. The winning percentage conferred by the handicap is what matters. Four stones in Go sounds like a lot less than four pawns in chess, but if that's what the math says by each resulting in the same winning percentage, then the equivalency is true.
- lemonsrsour 13y ago
  I'm around 2000 ELO in chess and I'd win every single game vs anyone with 4 pawns or a minor piece handicap. Being a single pawn up is usually decisive in chess. Having said that, this whole discussion is pointless, no one ever gives handicaps in chess, because it completely messes up the initial position. Even lacking one or two pawns at start will make it extremely hard to establish any kind of central presence. edit: Apparently kasparov gave a ~2200 guy 2 pawn handicap once, ended up winning 2.5-1.5 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317037/Kasparov-makes-it-a-knight-to-remember.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317037/Kasparov-make....

cjbprime 13y ago

More than a pawn: I think "two bishops" was about right. The value of each stone (as an ability to stake out territory -- sometimes called the "temperature of the board" in game theory) decreases as the game goes on. A stone in each corner is huge, probably worth about 80pts of potential territory. In the middle game, the temperature might drop from 20pts to 10pts per move. So your averaging method doesn't quite work. :)