7 ms·

To put in more westernized chess terms, this would be like beating a 2100Elo master without bishops. Yoshio is a professional and very skilled, but he hasn't wo

To put in more westernized chess terms, this would be like beating a 2100Elo master without bishops. Yoshio is a professional and very skilled, but he hasn't won a major tourniquet since 1989. Really not an achievement, its nice to see Computer Go advancing. A 4 stone handicap between master's is massive. The difference between a 9d (dan) and 1d isn't actually 8 stones. With an 8 stone handicap a 1d will play a 9d off the board (provided both are profession dans not amateur). Source http://www.amazon.com/Kages-Secret-Chronicles-Handicap-Go/dp/0870403869 http://www.amazon.com/Kages-Secret-Chronicles-Handicap-Go/dp... Generally I would say that this should put it around US 2-4d (for US Go Association, or KGS online). Maybe 2k-1d in professional amateur circles. I doubt it work warrant a 1-3p 'professional ranking'.

cruise02 13y ago
A four stone handicap in Go is way less than a four piece handicap in chess. Also, Crazy Stone is 6d on KGS.
- valarauca1 13y ago
  True I edited it down to just bishops. And KGS is very inflated, a 6d on KGS vs. a 6d international professional wouldn't be contest. The normal conversion I hear is a 3d on KGS is around a 1k on Eastern Servers. Or that's my experience for people who play on KGS and eastern servers. I'm a 4k on KGS, but I know my knowledge is a bit amateur or a South Korean 4k.
  - z0r 13y ago
    It's roughly the other way around - a 1k on KGS is probably capable of easily holding down 2d on Tygem / Cyberoro
  - ghaven 13y ago
    I'll second that it's really the other way around in both my own experience and the general perception I've always had from others.
  - awwducks 13y ago
    There is a difference between amateur levels and professional dan levels. For reference, you probably have to be at least 7-8 dan on KGS to be close to being professional. Here is a rank comparison of various amateur systems: http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison All of those systems will be weaker than any professional system. It's inaccurate to say that KGS is "very inflated" since it's measuring amateurs instead of professionals.
  - asynchrony 13y ago
    Two bishops is still too much. An above average amateur chess player around ELO 2000 should regularly beat the world champion with two extra bishops.
    - fragsworth 13y ago
      More often than not, a loss of a single piece in chess results in resignation. You have to make a serious blunder to lose a game when you're ahead by one piece. I think a more accurate analogy would be playing a game of chess without a pawn, or two, maybe, but the game is so heavily based on opening lines that some might argue if you have a pawn handicap, it shouldn't be called chess.
      - gcp 13y ago
        From the perspective of a player over 400 ELO stronger than his opponent, such blunders do happen regularly.
      - S4M 13y ago
        My FIDE rating is slightly above 1900. I think that with 2 bishops I'll beat Magnus Carlsen easily, simply because I could sacrify one bishop for some attack and still be ahead in terms of material. But with only one bishop ahead at the start of the game, I doubt it will be enough.
        gcp 13y ago
        You would lose a longer match. (You're the second player posting here who seems to drastically underestimate the effect of the ELO difference. That said, 900 ELO difference is so far out on the Bell curve that I wouldn't want to take bets on this one.)
        sanoli 13y ago
        2 bishops is a massive advantage in chess, but I still don't think a 1900 player could beat Magnus. Maybe a 2200 player?
  - bluecalm 13y ago
    A bishop in chess is massive. I am decent amateur (2300 ELO) and I crush the strongest computers in blitz (which are way stronger than the strongest humans) with bishop odds and it's not even interesting. 4 stones is more like a pawn, massive at professional level, not much in pro vs amateur duels. While playing vs Houdini I managed only few draws (and I lose like 95% of the time) with 2 pawns odds as well (and those were 2 pawns of my choosing, not random ones). There is huge difference between a bishop and two pawns.
    - gcp 13y ago
      I am decent amateur (2300 ELO) and I crush the strongest computers in blitz (which are way stronger than the strongest humans) with bishop odds and it's not even interesting. Either your rating is wrong, your are not actually playing the strongest computers, you're arguing from a too small sample size, or your definition of "crush" means "I win half of the games but those that I do win I do so convincingly". 4 stones is more like a pawn This is completely and utterly wrong. The winning odds of having a 4 stone headstart are an order of magnitude higher than those of being up a pawn. There is huge difference between a bishop and two pawns. Yes. About 150 ELO - equivalent. More than being another pawn up.
      - asynchrony 13y ago
        Where are you getting this material advantage / ELO handicap ratio? At any rate I'm also a decent amateur (2350 ELO) and it's absolutely unsurprising that a (2200+) player easily beats very strong computers with bishop odds.
        gcp 13y ago
        I pointed some public research putting 1 pawn = 100 ELO advantage above. I used a different technique that didn't try to search for quiet positions, but calculated the ELO value of positional and material factors directly, and included human games as well. The mathematics to do so are (appropriately enough!) in a research paper from the Crazy Stone author.
      - 13y ago
  - mcv 13y ago
    There's a big difference between amateur dans and professional dans (which is also why professionals are usually denoted with a p rather than a d).
NhanH 13y ago
I think it's actually a pretty big deal than you're saying. Firstly, Yoshio was one of the strongest player in the 1970s. Nowadays, despite not being as strong as he was, I wouldn't say he's equivalent to 2100Elo master. If you assume that the top player is 2800, a +700 difference mean something like .9999 probability for the top player to win against Yoshio (which practically means always). I doubt that would be the case. It's more likely that a winrate from .66 to ~.85 to be more appropriate. In other word, Yoshio would be ~2600ish ELO. That would still be an underestimate of Yoshio's strength imo. Professional dan denotes past achievements, not playing strength. Young 1p is actually more likely to be about half a stone to a stone stronger than some older pros. It's fairly hard to quantify how strong 9d KGS or AGA are, since there are too fews of them. But if 9d KGS is ~1 stones weaker than the pro, add on 3 more stones and Crazy Stone would be ~ 5d-6d KGS, which would be 95-98% percentile or more! That would make the computer about ~2100-2300 Elo for chess. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 10 years ago, no go program would have even come close to a mid rank kyu players. Sorry, I know that the ranges given in the post are quite broad and might look silly, it's just hard to make any direct comparison between the system
- hyperpape 13y ago
  I think .66 is substantially too low. Iyama Yuta is well over 50% against any professional in Japan, and while Ishida is still competitive in Japan, he's not a title contender anymore. So I'd wager that Iyama is at least a 66% favorite against Ishida, and Iyama is himself not 50-50 against the absolute top players (40-60 perhaps, maybe worse).
baddox 13y ago
What is a professional amateur circle?
- awwducks 13y ago
  He probably means "insei" or "yeon'gusaeng". [1] That is, students striving to become professional. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insei
dfc 13y ago
> To put in more westernized chess terms, this would be like beating a > 2100 Elo master without bishops. This sentence is not helpful. A handicap is useless without a basic idea of the skill level of both opponents. Who is playing the 2100 master? My mom who has no chess knowledge, the casual player who knows how the pieces move but has never devoted anytime to study, or someone ranked 1500? |------------+---------+------------------------+-----------| | Underdog | Result | Favorite | Handicap | |------------+---------+------------------------+-----------| | CrazyStone | defeats | Ishida Yoshio | 4 Stones | | ?????????? | defeats | 2100 ELO Ranked Player | 2 Bishops | |------------+---------+------------------------+-----------|
- jmulho 13y ago
  > Who is playing the 2100 master? Crazy Stone computer Go program.
  - dfc 13y ago
    Crazy Stone the Go computer program is playing a human chess player with a 2100 ranking?
    - billforsternz 13y ago
      No some chess program that is at good as chess as Crazy Stone is at go. This is actually a perfectly reasonable way of framing a discussion. Chess programs are stronger than the best Chess players, Go programs are weaker than the best go players, discuss. Having said that I suspect there are problems with the two bishops and the 2100 Elo. Reading other posts, maybe it is 2 pawns or so and maybe 2600 Elo.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        billforsternz 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hyperpape 13y ago
What are you basing this on? It seems wrong both in terms of the size of the handicap and the strength of Ishida. Ishida first: while he is certainly not top 100 in the world anymore, he is quite probably top 1000 (there are something like 1500 professionals out there, and he is probably above average for Japanese professionals, maybe above average for all the countries (see https://www.google.com/search?q=yoshio+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Figokisen.web.fc2.com%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8%29 https://www.google.com/search?q=yoshio+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fi...). So he's closer to a grandmaster than a master. And in any case, other professionals have lost at four stones (see http://www.computer-go.info/h-c/index.html http://www.computer-go.info/h-c/index.html). Second, regarding the handicap: I am not knowledge enough about chess to say, but it sounds high. In Go, I have beaten players who officially should give me three stones (though as you approach professional strength, it is true that players would be better at preserving that advantage and converting it into a win). I'd estimate the handicap as somewhere between 400 and 600 GoR points (which are similar in spirit to ELO ratings--http://senseis.xmp.net/?EGFRatingSystem http://senseis.xmp.net/?EGFRatingSystem). It is worth noting that the best European players take two to three stones from strong Asian professionals.
lukas 13y ago
This is a huge achievement. I'm an amature 5-dan (aga) and I would not bet on myself against a 9d pro with a four stone handicap. It's amazing how far computer go has come in the last few years.
blueskin_ 13y ago
>tourniquet tournament?
nopinsight 13y ago
On March 21, 2014, Crazy Stone just beat another 9-dan professional with 4 stone handicap. The 9-dan professional, Yoda Norimoto, was among the top Go players in Japan just 5-8 years ago. He was a runners-up to several pro titles in Japan as late as 2006-2009 and was the holder of a major title (Gosei) in 2005. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fentcog.c.ooco.jp%2Fentcog%2Fdensei%2F http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=ht... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norimoto_Yoda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norimoto_Yoda

cruise02 13y ago

A four stone handicap in Go is way less than a four piece handicap in chess. Also, Crazy Stone is 6d on KGS.

valarauca1 13y ago
True I edited it down to just bishops. And KGS is very inflated, a 6d on KGS vs. a 6d international professional wouldn't be contest. The normal conversion I hear is a 3d on KGS is around a 1k on Eastern Servers. Or that's my experience for people who play on KGS and eastern servers. I'm a 4k on KGS, but I know my knowledge is a bit amateur or a South Korean 4k.
- z0r 13y ago
  It's roughly the other way around - a 1k on KGS is probably capable of easily holding down 2d on Tygem / Cyberoro
- ghaven 13y ago
  I'll second that it's really the other way around in both my own experience and the general perception I've always had from others.
- awwducks 13y ago
  There is a difference between amateur levels and professional dan levels. For reference, you probably have to be at least 7-8 dan on KGS to be close to being professional. Here is a rank comparison of various amateur systems: http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison All of those systems will be weaker than any professional system. It's inaccurate to say that KGS is "very inflated" since it's measuring amateurs instead of professionals.
- asynchrony 13y ago
  Two bishops is still too much. An above average amateur chess player around ELO 2000 should regularly beat the world champion with two extra bishops.
  - fragsworth 13y ago
    More often than not, a loss of a single piece in chess results in resignation. You have to make a serious blunder to lose a game when you're ahead by one piece. I think a more accurate analogy would be playing a game of chess without a pawn, or two, maybe, but the game is so heavily based on opening lines that some might argue if you have a pawn handicap, it shouldn't be called chess.
    - gcp 13y ago
      From the perspective of a player over 400 ELO stronger than his opponent, such blunders do happen regularly.
    - S4M 13y ago
      My FIDE rating is slightly above 1900. I think that with 2 bishops I'll beat Magnus Carlsen easily, simply because I could sacrify one bishop for some attack and still be ahead in terms of material. But with only one bishop ahead at the start of the game, I doubt it will be enough.
      - gcp 13y ago
        You would lose a longer match. (You're the second player posting here who seems to drastically underestimate the effect of the ELO difference. That said, 900 ELO difference is so far out on the Bell curve that I wouldn't want to take bets on this one.)
      - sanoli 13y ago
        2 bishops is a massive advantage in chess, but I still don't think a 1900 player could beat Magnus. Maybe a 2200 player?
- bluecalm 13y ago
  A bishop in chess is massive. I am decent amateur (2300 ELO) and I crush the strongest computers in blitz (which are way stronger than the strongest humans) with bishop odds and it's not even interesting. 4 stones is more like a pawn, massive at professional level, not much in pro vs amateur duels. While playing vs Houdini I managed only few draws (and I lose like 95% of the time) with 2 pawns odds as well (and those were 2 pawns of my choosing, not random ones). There is huge difference between a bishop and two pawns.
  - gcp 13y ago
    I am decent amateur (2300 ELO) and I crush the strongest computers in blitz (which are way stronger than the strongest humans) with bishop odds and it's not even interesting. Either your rating is wrong, your are not actually playing the strongest computers, you're arguing from a too small sample size, or your definition of "crush" means "I win half of the games but those that I do win I do so convincingly". 4 stones is more like a pawn This is completely and utterly wrong. The winning odds of having a 4 stone headstart are an order of magnitude higher than those of being up a pawn. There is huge difference between a bishop and two pawns. Yes. About 150 ELO - equivalent. More than being another pawn up.
    - asynchrony 13y ago
      Where are you getting this material advantage / ELO handicap ratio? At any rate I'm also a decent amateur (2350 ELO) and it's absolutely unsurprising that a (2200+) player easily beats very strong computers with bishop odds.
      - gcp 13y ago
        I pointed some public research putting 1 pawn = 100 ELO advantage above. I used a different technique that didn't try to search for quiet positions, but calculated the ELO value of positional and material factors directly, and included human games as well. The mathematics to do so are (appropriately enough!) in a research paper from the Crazy Stone author.
    - 13y ago
- mcv 13y ago
  There's a big difference between amateur dans and professional dans (which is also why professionals are usually denoted with a p rather than a d).

NhanH 13y ago

I think it's actually a pretty big deal than you're saying. Firstly, Yoshio was one of the strongest player in the 1970s. Nowadays, despite not being as strong as he was, I wouldn't say he's equivalent to 2100Elo master. If you assume that the top player is 2800, a +700 difference mean something like .9999 probability for the top player to win against Yoshio (which practically means always). I doubt that would be the case. It's more likely that a winrate from .66 to ~.85 to be more appropriate. In other word, Yoshio would be ~2600ish ELO. That would still be an underestimate of Yoshio's strength imo. Professional dan denotes past achievements, not playing strength. Young 1p is actually more likely to be about half a stone to a stone stronger than some older pros. It's fairly hard to quantify how strong 9d KGS or AGA are, since there are too fews of them. But if 9d KGS is ~1 stones weaker than the pro, add on 3 more stones and Crazy Stone would be ~ 5d-6d KGS, which would be 95-98% percentile or more! That would make the computer about ~2100-2300 Elo for chess. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 10 years ago, no go program would have even come close to a mid rank kyu players. Sorry, I know that the ranges given in the post are quite broad and might look silly, it's just hard to make any direct comparison between the system

hyperpape 13y ago
I think .66 is substantially too low. Iyama Yuta is well over 50% against any professional in Japan, and while Ishida is still competitive in Japan, he's not a title contender anymore. So I'd wager that Iyama is at least a 66% favorite against Ishida, and Iyama is himself not 50-50 against the absolute top players (40-60 perhaps, maybe worse).

baddox 13y ago

What is a professional amateur circle?

awwducks 13y ago
He probably means "insei" or "yeon'gusaeng". [1] That is, students striving to become professional. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insei

dfc 13y ago

> To put in more westernized chess terms, this would be like beating a > 2100 Elo master without bishops. This sentence is not helpful. A handicap is useless without a basic idea of the skill level of both opponents. Who is playing the 2100 master? My mom who has no chess knowledge, the casual player who knows how the pieces move but has never devoted anytime to study, or someone ranked 1500? |------------+---------+------------------------+-----------| | Underdog | Result | Favorite | Handicap | |------------+---------+------------------------+-----------| | CrazyStone | defeats | Ishida Yoshio | 4 Stones | | ?????????? | defeats | 2100 ELO Ranked Player | 2 Bishops | |------------+---------+------------------------+-----------|

jmulho 13y ago
> Who is playing the 2100 master? Crazy Stone computer Go program.
- dfc 13y ago
  Crazy Stone the Go computer program is playing a human chess player with a 2100 ranking?
  - billforsternz 13y ago
    No some chess program that is at good as chess as Crazy Stone is at go. This is actually a perfectly reasonable way of framing a discussion. Chess programs are stronger than the best Chess players, Go programs are weaker than the best go players, discuss. Having said that I suspect there are problems with the two bishops and the 2100 Elo. Reading other posts, maybe it is 2 pawns or so and maybe 2600 Elo.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - billforsternz 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hyperpape 13y ago

What are you basing this on? It seems wrong both in terms of the size of the handicap and the strength of Ishida. Ishida first: while he is certainly not top 100 in the world anymore, he is quite probably top 1000 (there are something like 1500 professionals out there, and he is probably above average for Japanese professionals, maybe above average for all the countries (see https://www.google.com/search?q=yoshio+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Figokisen.web.fc2.com%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8%29 https://www.google.com/search?q=yoshio+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fi...). So he's closer to a grandmaster than a master. And in any case, other professionals have lost at four stones (see http://www.computer-go.info/h-c/index.html http://www.computer-go.info/h-c/index.html). Second, regarding the handicap: I am not knowledge enough about chess to say, but it sounds high. In Go, I have beaten players who officially should give me three stones (though as you approach professional strength, it is true that players would be better at preserving that advantage and converting it into a win). I'd estimate the handicap as somewhere between 400 and 600 GoR points (which are similar in spirit to ELO ratings--http://senseis.xmp.net/?EGFRatingSystem http://senseis.xmp.net/?EGFRatingSystem). It is worth noting that the best European players take two to three stones from strong Asian professionals.

lukas 13y ago

This is a huge achievement. I'm an amature 5-dan (aga) and I would not bet on myself against a 9d pro with a four stone handicap. It's amazing how far computer go has come in the last few years.

blueskin_ 13y ago

>tourniquet tournament?

nopinsight 13y ago

On March 21, 2014, Crazy Stone just beat another 9-dan professional with 4 stone handicap. The 9-dan professional, Yoda Norimoto, was among the top Go players in Japan just 5-8 years ago. He was a runners-up to several pro titles in Japan as late as 2006-2009 and was the holder of a major title (Gosei) in 2005. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fentcog.c.ooco.jp%2Fentcog%2Fdensei%2F http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=ht... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norimoto_Yoda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norimoto_Yoda