Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:32:50 02/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2004 at 15:17:21, Janosch Zwerensky wrote: > >>>GnuGo is said to be not much weaker than the top commercials (the strongest of >>>which is Go++), but a weakly 4-kyu amateur like myself (...) >>Janosch, thanks! It's great to have somebody here in a computer chess discussion >>who's also so strong at Go. > >Thanks, but 4th kyu isn't really strong yet :). > Well, in a relative sense it's darn strong for a chess guy. I'm certainly a lot weaker than that, and I doubt that anybody else who reads this board is above 4-kyu. You're probably the Go Grandmaster of this discussion. ;-) >> >>When I started playing Go (after Christmas), I was told that my decades of chess >>experience would work to my detriment. But I don't think that was the case. > >Experience at chess is certainly going to be an advantage relative to other Go >beginners rather than a disadvantage. If it does nothing else, knowing chess >will prepare one for the general type of challenges any deep game poses. > >>(...) >>What do you forsee for the 5- and 20-year timeframes? > >I've no idea. Programs are certainly getting stronger and will continue to do >so, and since there are no miracles happening in the human brain, I'm certain >that it is possible in principle to build a machine that plays Go well. >Personally, I'd say I'm quite optimistic that it will be doable one day also in >practice, but whether it will happen in the next 20 years, I have no way of >knowing. > >> Will vastly faster CPUs >>make a big difference if the current algorithms continue to be used? > >I don't think so. Faster CPU's alone would certainly help improve tactical >reading a lot, and might open the door to shallow full-board reading if this is >desired, and such things might gain programs a few stones. However, even if >running a thousand times faster would allow for simple software changes leading >to, say, three stones of a gain in playing strength, programs like those we have >now would still be 4 kyu at best, and certainly weaker when playing people who >know their weaknesses. >Of course, faster computers will never hurt or hinder the development of better >software :). > >> Might a >>completely different approach (I have one idea on the back burner) provide a >>real breakthrough? > >It is my understanding that something like this has happened in computer >backgammon, so it might not be impossible to happen in Go. Trying new ideas will >also certainly not hurt but help the development of computer go :). > >> What do you think is really going on inside the mind of a >>9-dan pro? > >I've no idea. I actually don't look at pro games, because these guys have a >habit of playing moves I don't understand, which tends to frustrate me. For this >reason, I prefer to go through games of players from the lower and intermediate >amateur dan ranks, because the proportion of plays which I wouldn't have seen >but which I still can recognize as being simple, beautiful and strong is >perceivably higher there :). > I fully concur -- I don't understand many moves of professionals and thus I cannot improve much by studying them. But that's one thing about Go that makes it so interesting and different for me -- I can almost always understand chess GM moves, even if I never would have been able to come up with them (or with the supporting variations that make them playable) myself. After 30+ years of chess, Go is a fascinating departure for me. There are some similarities to chess, yet the differences are tantalizing. It's my general feeling that once you get past the gross blundering phase, strategy plays a MUCH larger part in Go than it does in chess. One of the things I love most is that you can get outplayed tactically in several spots on the board and still win (and the converse). It seems that you can win games against non-beginners without ANY tactical domination and almost no detailed calculation, if you play well strategically and avoid gross blunders. I guess those mysterious, seemingly inscrutable, moves of professionals make Go all the more intriguing to me! (Maybe because I prefer to play by "feel" more than to calculate variations, which you really can't get away with in chess but apparently CAN in Go?)
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.