Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:17:59 06/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 2002 at 23:37:06, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On June 10, 2002 at 11:39:18, Alberto Rezza wrote: > >>On June 09, 2002 at 19:29:33, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>You do a very nice job of manipulating the intention of everything I said. >> >>I have to say you are wrong here. >> >>Of course, with deep enough search (say 50- to 100-ply for chess, 300-ply or >>more for go) strategy completely disappears and everything is tactics. Then you >>would be right. >> >>But if we keep the distinction betwen strategy and tactics, it is true that by >>reducing the size of the go board you lose a lot of strategic contents. You lose >>all of it if you go all the way to 2x2. So he was right and you wrong: it's not >>the same game. Of course this same reasoning would apply to any form of >>mini-chess. >> >>To put the whole discussion in perspective, here are some facts (I can give no >>sources now, but I could dig them up in variuos places). All the rankings I give >>are comparable to Japanese amateur rankings (NOT to European, USA, IGS, etc. >>rankings). >> >>1. 7x7 go is almost solved. 9x9 go is widely regarded as somewhat less complex >>than chess, but more complex than checkers/draughts. 9x9 go is actually played, >>even by masters, though less than 19x19 go; 13x13 is played very little. >> >>2. The best go programs play at about 5- or 6-kyu level; but they go down to >>about 10-kyu in just a few games, after the human adapts to their artificial >>style of play (and peculiar blunders). In my opinion, a very dedicated human >>beginner (one who plays every day) could reach 6-kyu in one month; however, very >>few people actually do it in less than one year, and some NEVER reach that >>level. >> >>3. BTW, I used to be 3-dan (I'm weaker now for I don't play) and I could beat >>the best programs giving a 9-stone handicap, or more. >> >>4. It's a fact that go is much more difficult TO PROGRAM than chess; but this >>tells us nothing about which game is more difficult FOR HUMANS to play. > >I'm not so sure this is a proven fact. If you compare the amount of effort that >has gone into computer chess, it is orders of magnitude greater than for >computer go. There have been hundreds of computer chess programs, many hundreds >of academic papers and many books and doctorates on the subject plus a rich >history that goes right back to the 1940s. > >Certainly go is a different challenge that does not respond well to the same >techniques used in computer chess, but I don't think we can say for sure that it >is more difficult to program. Maybe it is dependent on the target. If the target is to have a program that beqats the world champion 6-0 then I do not know but if the target is to have a program that is better than 1500 then I think that writing chess programs is clearly easier. If you take a good and intelligent programmer who read nothing about games(and even never learned about the alpha beta algorithm) and ask him(her) to generate a chess program in a year without reading papers then I guess that (s)he can get at least into tscp level in a year and tscp is clearly better than 1500. I guess that the programmer may find the alpha beta without help. If you ask the programmer to write a good go program without reading papers then I guess that the same programmer is not going to be able even to do a program that is at 1500 level(1500 level in chess is eqvivalent to the level of the best go programs in the world based on my understanding). Uri
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.