Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 10:52:20 12/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2002 at 13:10:25, Edward Seid wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 12:54:47, Richard Pijl wrote: > >>This is hard to answer as the question is not clear. >>Do you mean: >>1) the amount of programming required to produce a playing program? >>2) the amount of programming required to produce the best playing program? >>3) the amount of programming required to produce a (human) world-champion level >>playing program >>4) The amount of research done in programming a playing program (which reduces >>complexity for the programmer as ideas can be copied) > >You're correct... the original question was poorly phrased. I think what I had >in mind was the computational complexity to 'solve' each game. Which is loosely >related to #3 above. > >As I look at your list, I see that I'm not interested in #1. I can imagine that :-) >Vincent made a compelling argument that #2 is driven by commercial interests in >each game. There is commercial interest because many people (that can afford buying computers and programs) play the game and have interest in a computer program. As this increases competition (also from amateurs) it is harder to be best. >Besides the fact that western chess is computing's 'Drosophila melanogaster', >I'm not sure about #4. Basically more research on a game means that goal number 3 is easier to reach as you can use ideas from many researchers and don't have to invent them on your own. For that reason I would probably put Go on top as there is a long way to go to the top. Richard.
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.