Author: Pekka Karjalainen
Date: 23:29:21 02/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2001 at 21:37:39, G. R. Morton wrote: >I agree. Evidence for this is the game of Go, and other Asian board games, which >are combinatorially much more complex than Chess and much more difficult to >program for (I heard an AI programmer give a lecture about this). It took much >longer for Go programmers to begin to catch up with the human masters. I >understand they have not caught up yet to the degree that Chess programers have. http://www.intelligentgo.org has some news and other material on computer Go. There are some promising result in the field, but catching up to master is not something that'll probably happen quite soon. I am posting OT messages again. Stopping now, with an apology. >Even for Capablanca’s suggestion of just two more pieces per side (on an 8x10 >board), the instinctive pruning and pattern recognition of humans should defeat >the search programs for good while (especially once human’s started to master >the game).
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.