4 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou'll notice they didn't support their arguments - they were just guessing.
- throwaway5752 13y agoMy 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 agoPoints (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 agoYes, 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.