Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:08:46 12/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2002 at 08:42:36, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 17:39:12, Maurizio De Leo wrote: > >>On December 11, 2002 at 14:04:19, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>>It's interesting that you would rank Western Chess as more complex than Go. >>>>Western chess programs are GM-strength. Are Go programs equally capable? >>> >>>If similar effort would have been put in go like it has been in chess, >>>my answer would be yes. But i could imagine that after my chessprogram >>>has been finished (perhaps never) that when i find someone who is good in >>>GO that i improve my GO program. I see most of the strongest go programs >>>make mistakes which some simple evaluation knowledge can fix easily in >>>combination with search. >> >>You just seem not to understand how complex is Go to program. I'm a club player >>of chess,checkers and go and I won't even dare to say which game is more >>interesting or more complex from a human player point of view. >> >>But for the computer-side there is no question. I'm not a professional >>programmer, but for sure I can write a chess-program that can beat all the >>"non-club" player. I think a "brute-force" 5 or 6 ply should be enough. >>While best Go program, with commercial interests and years of development (like >>Many Faces) are still weaker than a relative beginner (let's say someone who is >>10/12 kyu or 1500/1600 Elo). >> >>>Despite huge evaluation functions some still do not know much from evaluation >>>programming i get the impression. They focus upon things humans find difficult >>>instead of fixing some major strategical bugs which causes me to win from >>>all GO programs. >> >>The problem is that fixing what you call "major strategical bugs" is not easy at >>all. The strategic evaluation is really difficult to implement because of very >>generic and not algoritmic things like "thickness", "shape" and so on. >> >>>It's an amateur league really. I lack positional knowledge to create a good >>>GO program. Like how you attack a weak group. It's all standard for strong >>>GO players. Not for me. >> >>This doesn't me that if you had this positional knoweledge you can easily make a >>good go program. I'm sure that if you can make a 1/2 dan (candidate master) go >>program, you will make a lot more money than making the strongest chess program >>: why you don't try, if you are so sure ? > >When you have a chessprogram in the world top, the rest is complete >pathetic compared to that. It is clear that also for chessprograms you >need loads of chess knowledge, just like for Go. > >The difference is that a single person will be capable of writing a >go program within a year or 2 that can easily challenge the world top. > >In my case if i would be busy a full year fulltime, i would surely, >even without help of a strong go player, be capable of challenging the >go-top.+\ That is the biggest pile of crock I have ever heard. :) If it is so easy, why don't you grab that $1,000,000 prize by beating the best at go? The prize is there. You say you can do it. do it.. And _then_ you will understand "complexity" and "exponential search space". And you won't be making such utterly nonsensical statements... > >However it is impossible to write a chessprogram within 1 year that can >challenge the world top computerchess. *impossible*. Even the best >go programmer will be capable of telling you why. > >They are just busy figuring out knowledge from chessprogrammers and >which is known in the computerchess world for years, in order to improve >their own go program. > >They should figure out things like *how* do some of the oldy chessprograms >do their selective search? > >>>But consider this. Nullmove works a lot better in GO than it does in chess. >>>The quotes branching factors are bloody nonsense. Even for a 6 ply search >>>the b.f. it is already way under 10.0 in GO. >> >>Ok. So let's analyze. For 6 ply 10^6 moves in Go and 4^6 = 4096 in Diep (or do >>you have a branching factor over 4 ?). It seems that you have to squeeze some >>three order of magnitude from optimization. > >Every beginner can get a better b.f. than the top go programs, but >you won't be capable of writing a correctly searching chess program that >can challenge the strong chess programs b.f. > >Getting my point slowly? > >>>Some also do not know how to >>>program. Some evaluation functions scan the board in a very idiotic way. >>>Branches all over which can be replaced. A simple lossless rewrite making it >>>10 times faster... >> >>As I pointed before, you should get something more than that. >> >>>Add to that, that there is no GM title in GO. >> >>So ? What this mean ? >>There is no "professional" title in Chess. There is no "Davis Cup" in soccer. >>And so on with nonsense statements. >> >>>However important is to realize that if i pay a GO player money to play >>>my go program, without paying him to win (like it happens in the computerchess >>>world) and make all the conditions equal to what happens in the >>>computerchess world, that the GO player will have a real hard time. >> >>If you pay the Go player to win he will have a real hard time ?? >>So if professional isn't paid he can kick the butt of all programs giving 12 >>stone advantage (= queen advantage) but he will start having problems if he is >>paid ? >>What kind of things are you saying ? >> >> >>>Do not forget that the first 'beating' of GMs in the computerchess world >>>was at 5 0 level. >>>I have to see the first professional go player manage to play 150 moves >>>within 5 minutes instead of a full day. >> >>Give the professional 15 mins for 150 moves (instead of 5 mins for 50 moves in >>chess) and it will beat three program simultaneously. >> >>>Suppose you let a small FM play against a strong chessprogram at a level >>>of a full day for the entire game. >>> >>>Of course the FM will win. >> >>What ? >>Usually go players have 6/8 hours for the game which isn't far to 2h/40+2h/40 >>+30min of top chess. Anyway you are a strong Fide Master, almost international >>master. Would you mind beating Deep Fritz 7 by 10-0 (i would accept also 9-1) ? >>Maybe time can be 10 hour for player for the game ? Or 12 hour, as you want. >> >> >>Maurizio
This page took 0.42 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.