9 stones isn't all *that* big of a handicap; go, unlike many other games, is very conducive to handicapping. It'd be more like beating a cheetah wearing a moderately heavy rucksack.
9 stones against an 8d still means that it's verging on "dan" status (generally, 1 stone = 1 skill level...) and that's a big deal.
Something tells me, though, that programmer nerd would be *crushed* in a head-to-head with an 8-dan, even with a 9 stone handicap. You really have to give the algorithm itself most of the credit.
The theory and strategy for algorithmic go-playing is very, very different from on-the-fly strategy;
algorithmic strategy isn't even really applicable to normal gameplay, and vice-versa. Two totally different ways of thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
better link: http://usgo.org/congress/2008/myungwan-mogo.sgf
http://www.godiscussions.com/forum/showthread.php?p=81900
9 stones isn't all *that* big of a handicap; go, unlike many other games, is very conducive to handicapping. It'd be more like beating a cheetah wearing a moderately heavy rucksack. 9 stones against an 8d still means that it's verging on "dan" status (generally, 1 stone = 1 skill level...) and that's a big deal.
Something tells me, though, that programmer nerd would be *crushed* in a head-to-head with an 8-dan, even with a 9 stone handicap. You really have to give the algorithm itself most of the credit. The theory and strategy for algorithmic go-playing is very, very different from on-the-fly strategy; algorithmic strategy isn't even really applicable to normal gameplay, and vice-versa. Two totally different ways of thinking.
shouldn't iTunes be a fortress by now?