Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:01:21 12/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2002 at 19:10:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: with todays hardware power and a b.f. of under 10 and a big forward pruning technique which already was invented in chess and a year of work it's no problem to get a real strong GO engine. let's not forget that the current go programs have nearly no openings theory. "because no opening is the same". is the argumentation. BS. there is only a few good moves at the first move. and majority plays the same idea always. you can already prepare there. professional preparement is something that doesn't happen there. reason: no one writes down his games. >On December 12, 2002 at 15:40:35, Maurizio De Leo wrote: > >>On December 12, 2002 at 09:20:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>On December 12, 2002 at 09:08:25, Maurizio De Leo wrote: >>> >>>>You seem to not want to understand what we are talking about. The question was >>>> >>>>>>>>WESTERN CHESS PROGRAMS ARE GM-STRENGTH.ARE GO PROGRAMS EQUALLY CAPABLE? >>>> >>>>And you answer was : >>>> >>>>>>>If similar effort would have been put in go like it has been in chess, >>>>>>>my answer would be YES. >>>> >>>>You also write : >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>I don't doubt your programming skill, but the question wasn't if you can >>>>challenge the top computer-go program of today (which are pathetically weak). It >>>>was if you can make a go program that is Gm (= professional) strenght. And the >>>>answer is NO. Not with today hardware, not with today technique. >>>>I showed you. You claim that the branching factor of go can be reduced to 10 >>>>ply. Also if that is true, which I doubt, there is a HUGE difference between >>>>10^x and 4^x ! >>> >>>You showed nothing. >> >>I showed that you contraddict yourself. I didn't proof anything of course. That >>is something that only you can do without data :-) >>You just said "go has a b.f. of 10" and "it is possible to make GM strenght go >>program with standard chess techniques". This seem contraddiction to me > >Not to mention the branching factor of "10". That is a "tad" understated, as >usual... > > >> >>>You just show you know nothing how far the chess programming world is. >>>You didn't investigate any go program i bet. >>>Yes i wrote within a few hours a go program a few year ago. >>>With that thing i could already search 6 ply at very old >>>hardware. No problem. >> >>Nice showing off. However I don't care how good a programmer you are. The >>question was >> >>WESTERN CHESS PROGRAMS ARE GM-STRENGTH.ARE GO PROGRAMS EQUALLY CAPABLE? >> >>And you answer was : >>If similar effort would have been put in go like it has been in chess, >>my answer would be YES. >> >>And having made a go-program in the past isn't on topic unless of course it was >>Gm-strengt. But I guess I can easily give a couple of stones of advantage to >>your program, and I'm a just a weak go player. >> >>>The main problems for GO is: >>> - you can't sell your stuff easily, because the >>> vaste majority of buyers live in Japan (china is not >>> relevant, they earn too little to afford a go program; so >>> they copy it i guess). >>> The Japanese market is very closed >> >>If you can make a 1/2 dan go program (candidate master strenght) there would be >>no problem of closed market. You would sell thousands of copies of it, because >>it would be something like 600 elo stronger than the world top. Anyway I >>seriously doubt you can do it. >> >>>You see a factor 60 is pretty much difference in speed. >> >>And I already told you that for overcoming a 10 to 4 ratio in branching factor >>you should really do MORE than that. >> >>>It is a simple matter of amateuristic programming, but all computerchess >>>programmers exactly know what causes it. Somehow in the computergo >>>mailing list they do not. >> >>Apart for your usual showing off, I noticed that you didn't respond to any of my >>two questions.Expecially on the second, I read in another topic that you have a >>few thousands to bet, so maybe this is a good occasion :-) >> >> >>>>>>>Add to that, that there is no GM title in GO. >> >>(1) So ? What this mean ? (1) >>There is no "professional" title in Chess. There is no "Davis Cup" in soccer. >> >> >>>>>>>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. >>>> >> >>(2) 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. (2) >> >> >>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.