Author: Janosch Zwerensky
Date: 06:41:32 02/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
>I took a look at GO a few years ago, my conclusion was that once everyone >agrees on what the rules of GO are, it will be an interesting project. I don't think the fact that there are several rulesets in use each of which slightly differs from the others makes the project any less interesting (also note that for the vast majority of positions possible, the same moves will be strong or weak no matter which ruleset is used). >Some people say funny things. A century ago computers were the stuff of >science fiction. Were there actually science fiction novels a hundred years ago that featured computers? >(...) >>First, I think it's quite a bit easier to create an engine that plays Go legally >>than it is to create one that plays chess legally. Even doing the GUI yourself >>isn't too hard, since it's mainly just black & white stones on a grid. That >>should encourage more people to try. > >There are multiple rulesets for GO, not only national rule sets, but even >between different tournaments. Tromp-Taylor helps with this, but last I >checked that ruleset wasn't universally accepted. As long as you don't get a superko situation or something similarly exotic on the board, all the rulesets give the same set of legal moves. >(...) >So to make money at GO, I would almost certainly need to learn at least >one of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean? Compared to the problem of writing a dan-level program, any internationalization issues will be trivial. >(...) Regards, Janosch
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.