Re: computer-go: Applying Moore's Law to Computer Go

["Gary Boos" <gboos@xxxxxxx>]

Hi.  I still have over 100 e-mails to read (with many from you), but
have you consider some kind of team effort with you, Anders AND
Mr. Yang ?
        Gary
------
------


-----Original Message-----
From: David Fotland <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, November 19, 1999 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: computer-go: Applying Moore's Law to Computer Go


>
>OK.  I think there will continue to be steady progress.  The commercial
>success of go programs in Japan and Korea means there is enough money
>that there will be more full time teams, so programs should continue
>to improve at a steady rate.  I think the strong programs will
>continue to rely on hand tuned knowledge rather than learning.  I think
>the basic algorithms for go programs are understood, just not published :)
>
>I think that 100,000 is much closer the number of (mostly unconcious) rules
>that a pro uses than a few hundred.  A pro sees the best or near best move
>at a glance, and does detailed reading to verify it.  It takes lots of
rules
>to do this accurately.  You might think of them as the thousands of
exceptions
>and special cases of the few hundred general rules.
>
>I've talked to Mr Yang about computer go and I think he would interested in
>working on a program, but I can't afford him.  He also thinks there are
>a small number of rules, but I've talked to him about some of them, and as
>I code them, one of his rules turns into a very large number of program
>rules :(
>
>I predict IGS 5k by 2010, IGS 2d by 2020, pro 1 dan by 2030, and pro 9 dan
>2040.
>
>David
>
>At 06:27 AM 11/16/99 -0800, Stuart Cracraft wrote:
>>
>>>i don't think it will be a big idea, i think it will be a bunch of rules
>>>like the above (maybe a few hundred) that get weighed depending on pom.
>>
>>Likely to be the above plus a tactical analyzer and some form of learning.
>>
>>David Fotland: would you speculate on the future of Computer Go?
>>
>>
>>
>