Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 13:53:41 02/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2004 at 16:11:17, Charles Roberson wrote: >On February 12, 2004 at 15:12:18, Roy Eassa wrote: > > >> >>Anyway, has anybody here ever tried writing a Go-playing program? I think it's >>a field ripe for a "breakthrough" -- a completely new approach from those that >>have been tried. I also think the Go programming world will make a small number > > I was at this point in 92. Learned to play go then finished my AI research. > In 95 I wrote a go program that played legal go and was better than "godummy". > The data structures effort is more elaborate than chess but the legal move >generation is easier. > >>> >>I think some smart person will create a full-featured GUI for Go that uses a >>"plug-in" architecture for playing engines, then negotiate with all the top >>authors to adapt their programs to that architecture, thus making a lot of money >>without having to write a strong engine themselves. Further, I think that >>having a standard plug-in architecture for testing one's Go engine will prompt >>many more people to create Go engines, thus increasing competition exponentially >>-- increasing the chance for a breakthrough. > > CGoban was a nice gui years ago and it uses the standard protocol >required for all go engines. Thus the protocol part for a plug-in engine is >done. This protocol is a standard and required by the international go >association. When computer-computer go is played with this standard the >computers are directly connected with no human intervention. I knew there was some sort of standard, used by GnuGo, but I did not think that most of the strongest commercial programs (Go++, The Many Faces of Go, HandTalk, Wulu, etc.) used it. Also, there seems to be an extreme dearth of program-versus-program games being played in Go, as compared to zillions here in the computer chess world. > >>Bottom line: I think there's a huge gap in the market that SOMEBODY will get >>rich from at some point in the not-too-distant future. And Go is a pretty >>interesting game, even though "chess" is considered a dirty word to many serious >>Go players. > > Agreed - there is a huge gap, but there is a reason for it. It is a tough >problem. In chess we see efforts in knowledge and graph theory. In go, the best >programs are heavy on knowledge. So, you need to team with a go master. >A good position evaluator is key and seems to require more pattern recognition >than is needed in chess. Yup. That's very true. But creating a program will the Go equialents of all the features of ChessBase/Fritz then inviting the world to create engines for it seems to be quite doable ... > > Charles
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.