Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:53:27 12/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2002 at 19:08:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Ok some hard facts. First price of a go computer tournament is $15000. Not $1000000. That $1 mln price was only if you beated with a program a professional go player before the year 2000. It will be hard to get that price. Secondly i said challenging the go-top. Of course meaning go-computer top. I do not know about you, but i have proven myself in more than just computerchess. Napoleon (my 10x10 international checkers program) is the only winner of the computer-human tournament held (if i remember well around 2000 or 2001). Of course old glory, nowadays it is much stronger. I ended a few weeks ago as 4th with napoleon in the draughts champ. Now what were your achievements in other board games other than computerchess? >do it.. >And _then_ you will understand "complexity" and "exponential search space". >And you won't be making such utterly nonsensical statements... I have a go program written too. I read daily the computergo mailing list. I own a lot of go programs and talked with a lot of go programmers. I know how they are made and what they can and cannot. Can you? Do you have a go program written? > >> >>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 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.