Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:18:02 10/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2000 at 04:41:53, Tony Werten wrote: >On October 11, 2000 at 00:32:23, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 10, 2000 at 21:27:38, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On October 10, 2000 at 20:47:28, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On October 10, 2000 at 16:16:34, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 10, 2000 at 10:52:54, Pekka Karjalainen wrote: >>>>> >> >>I believe that 6*6 chess is easier than 8*8 chess also for programs. >>I think that increasing the board is going to give more problems for computers. >>I know that the game go is hard for computers because the board is 19*19. >> > >The problem in go doesn't seem to be the branchingfactor but the difficulty of >writing a good evaluation function. > >If branchingfactor was the main problem then it would be quite impossible to >write an amazons program. ( bf of about 2000 ) > >Tony I think that the number of legal positions give a better estimate for the difficulty to write good programs. Theoretically it can be different because it is possible that the number of legal positions is very big but the side to move can do checkmate in the first move but practically I think that the number of legal positions is good to estimate the complexity of the game. The number of legal positions in go is clearly bigger than the number of legal positions in chess and computers have problems in go. The number of legal position in chess is bigger than the number of legal positions in backgammon and computers are very good in backgammon. 2 questions: 1)What is the number of legal positions in amazons? 2)Do you know about a game that is simpler than chess(smaller nunmber of legal positions) when programs have problems with it inspite of the fact that programmers worked seriously about it?. 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.