Posts:
2,220
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 5, 2010, 11:41 PM
alison, i agree with your theory. i just don't think it will ever happen. it is possible, but improbable. so yes he can be beaten in theory by a small margin as far as error ratio goes. to verify it if there was such a player would require years of research to study all moves played by all players involved in the equasion.
z
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 6, 2010, 1:35 AM
Zoey, I'm hearing some interesting thoughts behind your words:
--------------------------------------
although,... the data base will fight against this possibility. its constant expansion slowly squeezes out pente's potential of resurrecting.
at some point i might recommend suppressing the later half of the data bases games.
broken? hmm not sure ide say broken, but i'll say the game is not what it was compared to a few years back. thats a fact that the top players all know very well.
i'll say it has become increasingly difficult to find lines. i have been finding some,.. but no where near to the volume i used to discover on a per month average.
The best tactic is to just study a opening. and i mean Deep Study a opening. this might mean you review as many as 30,000 moves possible for one opening. so that it can be used on any player. so any 2nd and 3rd and 4th as white that they try you have a plan, where you already know the most optimal path(s), whether they are positional or novelties.
i'll just say that as top level knowledge expands in standardizing solid P1 responses, it becomes increasingly difficult to find novelties,.. the needles become less and less,.. smaller and smaller..in the hay stack
this contributes to top level burn out. when the well dries up,.. time to move on
---------------------------------------
I think that what's happening here, in general, is that YOU are getting even better at the game -- the game itself has not changed.
What happens is that as you try to study on your own to find a line that "works" for P2, you get better and better at punching holes in your own research to the point where it just all feels futile that P2 could ever possibly win. I think you are running into that in a big way right now without recognizing that it's your own skill that's making it seem like the game is close to being solved in a broad sense by the whole community. This overwhelming sense of futility is what eventually drives players away from the game. The set-based rating system helps greatly just from a ratings standpoint, but just in terms of game play this issue will continue to become dissatisfying.
For me personally, this happened to me several years ago as more of an epiphany type moment in abstract understanding. I had not yet perfected my own execution to be able to play lots of games flawlessly -- I still had a relatively high "error rate" compared to some other top players, and yet I knew all of a sudden that the game was solvable and that P2 should never win -- so why play? This was not just in a theoretical sense ... many players at all levels understand that P1 has an advantage ... I'm talking about a very deep sense of total futility. I've recently come back to the game more just for fun but you'll notice I still don't even play that often.
As for using the database, I have always taken the approach of avoiding "memorization" of "lines". Instead, I believe it is vastly more important to understand and apply concepts. I am constantly reinventing the wheel on every move throughout every game -- that constant thinking during play, even if you've seen the position hundreds of times, is how you get better in the most effective way in my opinion. Other top players have relied extremely heavily on database study and in general they tend to arrive at a similar skill level, just from a different direction -- so one approach is not necessarily better than the other. But trying to make it sound like the database is somehow solving the game is naive. It is an excellent feature here at this site that we are all lucky to enjoy.
Zoey, I hope that you stay active even if you are feeling that the game is solved for you. Too many strong players have been lost to this issue already.
Posts:
2,220
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 8, 2010, 11:27 AM
yes, i agree.
i hope to stay around too, and avoid the lurking burn out disorder. eventually when i do hit that point, i will switch over to only playing boat pente (<-possibly),..the game i started out on for 15 years. it was more complex, and will take longer than regular pente to hit burn out. alot of the regular openings in pente hit a brick wall when the boat tricks are applied as threats.
let me know if youd like to play me some live rated boat pente some time.
z
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 18, 2010, 9:56 AM
Just discussing this with Alison and we disagree on some points but I am under orders to post my thoughts.
In terms of the central question - if we agree that pente is a game that, unlike chess for example, has known perfect lines for player 1, and if we acknowledge that it is at Nosov's discretion whether he plays P1 lines that are known to be perfect, or takes a risk on some new line, then it is ultimately up to him whether he loses his number 1 spot. It seems to me that this is the essence of the situation under set based rating.
So, yes Nosovs can be beaten, but only if he chooses to be beaten - which I think you will agree is not really a victory for his opponent. So therefore he cannot.
Posts:
2,220
Registered:
Mar 4, 2007
From:
San Francisco
Age:
45 Home page
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 18, 2010, 12:17 PM
incorrect piecraft.
i will need to make some boards to explain why, when i have time i will. but i just wanted to let you know that i disagree and will have evidence to prove such.
and since i am not sure what alison's side was, i can not take her side either at the moment.
Scire hostis animum - Intelligere ludum - Nosce te ipsum - Prima moventur conciliat - Nolite errare
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 18, 2010, 4:23 PM
No need to apologize to me pete-pie! You are quite wrong so no apology needed lol!
Surely it is always the case that our opponent is complicit in our victories just as they are in our defeats?
You say that if our opponent consciously chooses to take the chance that their line of play may be imperfect, and we win, then this is not really winning. And, since if our opponent does not chose to take a risk and plays perfectly (assuming they know how to), then we lose anyway. Well under what circumstances do we actually win as P2?
Thus the only options left for a P2 win are: 1. The P1 player does not know any perfect lines, and does not play perfectly accidentally. 2. P1 attempts to play a perfect line and the makes an error leading to a P2 victory.
Following your philosophy, an Option 1 victory is hollow since it only results from the ignorance of the opponent, and Option 2 is hollow because it results from an error.
So the upshot of your approach seems to be that P2 can't win because even if P2 wins it's a hollow victory. So, under SBR, philosophically all sets are drawn, and hence Nosovs could not be surpassed (philosophically speaking) and nor could anyone else! To me this is crazy talk. This is sounding like Zeno's Paradox all over again.
I mean do you see Roger Federer saying "I only won because my opponent let me"? A win is a win. If Nosovs takes a chance on a new line then he does so for a reason, and that reason is not to lose but to win. If his judgment is found to be in error then so be it. It's the same for all of us in every game. If an opponent knows no perfect lines but engages in battle anyway and loses then the opponent has every reason to claim unfettered victory rights. Lastly, to err is human, so to discount losses due to P1 error just makes no sense unless you are playing a computer.
All these factors that contribute to winning and losing are part of what makes this a game. In my view, while I appreciate that there is good sentiment behind your view - that one should be honest about the nature of our victories and our defeats - I think that in the context of game play your philosophy denies the essence of games themselves.
Posts:
11
Registered:
Mar 14, 2004
From:
London, UK
Age:
57
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 19, 2010, 4:47 AM
I don't truly know if it is as obvious to anyone else as it is to this observant Doctor, but I must address the issue forthright. Namely, that alisontate is entirely too similar on too many levels to zoeyk. So much so, that I am now stating forthwith that it is my earnest belief that they are one and the same.
Alisontate = Zoeyk
Spectacular!
Now we may commence with all the divertive debate to the contrary.
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 19, 2010, 5:55 AM
Interesting theory Dr, but having met her in person I would have to say that zoey is a whole lot better looking than he leads us to believe.
Ali, my only comment about your response (as you already know), is that you cannot dismiss my argument just because you don't like it. If my philosophy does not appeal to your sense of what games are this is perfectly fine with me, however this does not in anyway discount the logic of my argument.
Zoey, I await your game evidence. But I have to say now, that I don't see an escape from my argument since there are only two possible situations, assuming that a player knows perfect lines of P1 play. These are 1. A player chooses to play a perfect P1 line, or 2. They don't. I don't see how you can get around that.
Re: Can Nosovs be beaten?
Posted:
Jun 19, 2010, 6:00 AM
sweety-pie
I think you miss the fact that not only do I not endorse your philosphy, but the reason I gave for not endorsing it also discredits it in the context of game play. You have logic yes, but it is misplaced.
