Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:25:23 12/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2002 at 10:53:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. What does this have to do with "mathematical complexity"? Answer: nothing. > >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? I didn't say I _had_ done anything else. However I do have two first place trophies from the WCCC events hanging in my office? How many do you have? Not that that means a thing, but since you asked... > >>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? In general, yes. > >Do you have a go program written? > Nope,. not interested. However, I will ask _the_ question again. The original post asked for a ranking of various games based on _mathematical complexity_. What does _your_ answer have to do with that question? Nothing. Again, you _changed_ the question to something totally unrelated to the original idea, and then tried (and failed) to answer that question with any sort of reasoning at all... The world of Computer Sciences is filled with _precise_ definitions of _specific terms_. You can _not_ start to make up your own definitions of such terms and have any hope of carrying on a discussion with others. Everyone knows what "branching factor" is. Everyone knows what "effective branching factor" is. And everyone knows what "mathematical complexity" is. If you don't pick up a good CIS theory book and look up "big-oh" or O(exp) analysis...
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.