Re: Turing test - Deep Blue

[birk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Vincent wrote:
> but did you count the number of ? moves of kasparov and all the
> GM's calling it 'weak gm level'?

I am not good enough at chess to judge DB or Kasparov. But 
assuming weak GM level for DB rates it about 2400 ELO.
That would be about 5dan (amateur) at Go!!!
The best Go programs are 8-10kyu (real strength) at best.

I think even if DB is not better than the best human players
it is at least close to them. Anybody who plays Go seriously
should beat the best programs after 1-2 years ...

> Giving up 1 move in chess is sometimes possible. Giving up 2 moves is in the 
> short term losing. especially if you also move the pieces to a worse place,
> which happens.
we cannot compare 'moves' in Go and Chess. They are way too different.

>Here a chess game from my own program against crafty.
>...
>So giving up many many stones is easy.

I do not get your point. Giving up stone/moves is only easy, if you
play somebody much weaker than yourself.

> Most questions asked here and a lot of discussions in this computer-go group
> are kind of naive from my viewpoint, as these discussions have been done 
> years ago in computer chess.

well, at computer-chess you can solve many problems with a deep
(almost full-width) search, that is completely unreasonable for 
computer-go, even if you put in millions of hardware dollars.

> So with a smart selective way of searching ...
> For example, if i allow my program to search for a night, then it gets
> selectively a search depth which can be compared to a brute force search
> depth of about 18-20 ply, extending some local tactical variations up to
> 56 ply

this is exactly the point! You claim to have found a way to search
18 ply in chess, good. But in Go 18 ply is a) much less valuable
b) much harder to do.
And what enables you to do a deep search in chess (tree pruning) is
also harder in Go, since there are so many strategical, long term
effects.

> Would huge main search depth lead to closing that gap in the same way?
no, not with 18 ply. 
A brute-force 18-ply go program would not play at weak GM level,
but you couldn't run such a program anyway.
(200 billon/trillion/etc positions/sec is pathetic if you want to 
search 200^18 ~ 10^41 :-) 

Christopoh