Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:31:44 12/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2002 at 17:01:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. That is simply laughable. I know a few go programmers that would fall out of their chair laughing if I told them the above... As far as a "branching factor under 10" that is simply wrong. If you mean "effective branching factor under 10" that _might_ be doable in some cases, but not for the whole game... > >let's not forget that the current go programs have nearly no >openings theory. That has no effect on "mathematical complexity"... > >"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.