Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:40:51 05/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2005 at 05:56:22, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On May 25, 2005 at 00:54:06, Joshua Shriver wrote: > >>Just curious has any engine developers here tried or have an interest in Go >>engine programming? >> >>-Josh > >I am interested in the topic, though I have yet to even attempt an engine. > >Essentially, you could argue that the major principles of computer chess have >been discovered. The important part of the chess tree is inherently short and >wide - seeing things at ply 4 tends to be _much_ more important than seeing >things at ply 5 by a considerable margin, and so on. This is just a fundamental >property of chess, and it maps nicely to an engineering approach of starting >with brute force, and optimizing that. (Which is essentially what things like >null move, check extension, etc are.) > >Of course, this doesn't rule out that there's an even better way - but to me it >feels like an appropriate mapping of solution to problem. > >In go, the current approaches are failing. What's funny about the best go >engines is that they seem to be decent positionally, but ridiculous tactically. I know nothing about go. What is the meaning of tactics in go? Do you say that the main advantage of humans against the best go engines is that humans can calculate more moves forward in forced lines? How many moves forward humans calculate in go? Both in chess and in go I think that if humans detect trapped pieces based on some structure that they know when the best go engines do not detect it then I think that humans simply have an advantage in positional understanding and not in tactics. Uri
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.