Re: computer-go: Good Play (was FPGA)

[Matt Gokey <mgokey@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike Gherrity wrote:

>> The problem is that people don't do a brute-force, iterative deepening
>> search.  How do they play so well?  It would be nice to figure out the
>> answer to this question using a game like Chess or Go.  However, if it
>> can't beat the brute-force, iterative deepening search machine, people
>> aren't interested.

How do they (people) play so well?  Hmmm, good question which got me
thinking about an assumption we are making.  Computer Chess really is
simpler than Computer Go for many reasons.  I don't think anyone here
would argue with that statement.  But is Chess a simpler game than Go? 
If so, how much harder is Go than Chess? It is more than a question of
degree of difficulty, since the two games are very different perhaps
requiring different skills, and so might be like comparing apples and
oranges, but just how hard is Go?  Let's assume it is around a couple of
orders of magnitude more difficult for the purposes of this discussion.

Given that thought, the question that popped into my head was How do we
know people (even at the professional Dan level) are playing the game so
well? Could it be that even professionals would be devastated by a
perfect/near perfect Go-playing entity?  If the game is so much more
difficult than chess, are Go players much more intellectually capable
than Chess players?

Taking the opposite conclusion, perhaps Go really ISN'T much harder than
chess, it is just different than Chess and due to its unique
characteristics is not amenable to the brute force, iterative deepening
search machine.

Questions:
Is Go inherently more difficult than Chess?
If so, is there a way to quantify the degree of difficulty?
Do expert Go players really play near perfectly?

Thoughts?

Matt