Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Question for chess programmers: Go

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 16:13:28 02/14/02

Go up one level in this thread


On February 14, 2002 at 18:23:56, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On February 14, 2002 at 18:10:53, Roy Eassa wrote:
>
>>A Go program that can run on an original IBM PC at 4.77 MHz would necessarily be
>>at least a little stronger if it ran on an Athlon 2000+, no?  The only way I can
>>see that not being the case is if there is no time limit per move (or per game
>>or per set of moves) that is of any constraint to any decent algorithm.  [Even
>>doing only a static position evaluation should take some non-trivial number of
>>CPU cycles to achieve a given level of strength.]
>
>For your example, I don't see why it should. If it can play on the XT
>in the required contraints, the _same program_ likely will gain very little
>or no strength moving to an Athlon.
>
>You could argue the reverse and say that going from the Athlon to the XT
>will lower the strength because it would exceed time and lose all of its
>matches.
>
>With similar reasoning you can probably argue that chess is solvable
>in O(1) time, that superlinear parallel speedups are possible, that
>chess is not a finite game and quite a bit of things about Deep Blue too,
>even.
>
>But I'm not going to reply.
>
>--
>GCP

In every finite game when the rules are clear better hardware or more time can
help

If I have a program A that almost does not use time then it is easy to develop a
program B that is going to win against A.

B will try every legal move and continue by playing A against itself.
B is going to choose the move that leaded to the best result against A.

It is clear that B is going to beat A in a match and I cannot believe that B is
not going to be at least slightly better than A against other programs.

I can believe that software is very important in go and I can believe that the
best program can beat the second best program even when the hardware of the
second best program is 100 times faster but I cannot believe that better
hardware cannot help without a design of the programmer not to use time
intentionally.

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.