Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:21:58 02/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2004 at 15:12:18, Roy Eassa wrote: >In December, I sort of got into the game of Go. Part of its fascination for me >is how it differs from chess with regard to creating a strong program. Methods >based primarily on tree searching apparently do not work in Go, for 2 main >reasons: first, the branching factor is much, much higher than in chess, and >second, once you've arrived at an end-node (position) to evaluate, there's no >known method of coming up with a reasonable evaluation. > >[Thus I had the perfect opportunity to create a Go-playing program that was >very, very weak yet might still beat me because I too was very, very weak >(having just re-learned the rules after over 25 years). But, alas, I studied Go >fairly intensely for 2 weeks and now I'm strong enough (but still weak!) that >I'd probably have great difficulty creating a program from scratch that can beat >me consistently.] > >Some people say that no Go program will be stronger than the best humans for at >least another century, if ever! Today's best Go programs are far weaker than >any Go professional. Hogwash. Computers will have more compute power than the human brain long before a century passes. >Anyway, has anybody here ever tried writing a Go-playing program? I think it's >a field ripe for a "breakthrough" -- a completely new approach from those that >have been tried. I also think the Go programming world will make a small number >of people a LOT of money at some point, as it lacks the monstrous presence of a >Chessbase -- a powerhouse company that sells a GUI with every conceivable >feature and sets the standard protocol for (nearly) all commercial playing >engines. There are a few decent GUIs and a few decently strong engines >(compared to weak amateur humans), but there's nothing even remotely close to >Chessbase (Fritz, etc.) for features or standardization. Every top programmer >uses his own GUI. Sort of like chess 12-15 years ago, in some ways. > >I think some smart person will create a full-featured GUI for Go that uses a >"plug-in" architecture for playing engines, then negotiate with all the top >authors to adapt their programs to that architecture, thus making a lot of money >without having to write a strong engine themselves. Further, I think that >having a standard plug-in architecture for testing one's Go engine will prompt >many more people to create Go engines, thus increasing competition exponentially >-- increasing the chance for a breakthrough. > >Two additional points: > >First, I think it's quite a bit easier to create an engine that plays Go legally >than it is to create one that plays chess legally. Even doing the GUI yourself >isn't too hard, since it's mainly just black & white stones on a grid. That >should encourage more people to try. > >Second, I realize that the market for Go products is pretty tiny in the Americas >and only medium-sized in Europe. But I think there's a HUGE market in Asia, >which can only grow as Asia's economies continue to grow quickly. Thus I think >that any product created would have to be marketed to Asia (primarily?) for big >financial success. > >Bottom line: I think there's a huge gap in the market that SOMEBODY will get >rich from at some point in the not-too-distant future. And Go is a pretty >interesting game, even though "chess" is considered a dirty word to many serious >Go players. Here is a port of GnuGo 3.4: ftp://cap.connx.com/chess-engines/new-approach/gnugo-34.zip It definitely searches a tree and it is pretty strong.
This page took 0.02 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.