Re: computer-go: Complexity & SW

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, Ing's offer was not for 1 dan, but the commercial value of such a
program is much higher anyway. Still, that doesn't really help because it's
not nearly enough to compensate for the effort it takes to reach such a
level. To think it could be delivered in just a couple of years greatly
underestimates the complexity of the task.

    Mark

----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Hapgood <hapgood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 10:06 PM
Subject: computer-go: Complexity & SW


>
> These issues relating to ultimate complexity are interesting but
> not directly relevant to the current state of computer go, which is
> still way below what humans can do right now with the tools at hand.
> I suspect that if the number of man-years and master involvement
> invested in go as opposed to chess had been reversed, today
> we would be seeing computer go programs playing at 3 or 4 dan
> and computer chess software struggling along with USCF ratings of
> around 1750.
>
> Speaking of which, has anyone looked at FunGo2000 by Intellisoft?
> Seems to play at about the level of Hamlet, which is to say maybe 8
> or 9  kyu.   These are the strongest programs out there so far as I
> know.  Anyone heard of any others?
>
> If someone was to offer a a million dollar prize for a program that
> could play 1 dan (amateur) I'm sure it would be delivered
> in two or three years, regardless of how complex GO is in any
> ultimate sense.
>
>
>
>
> www.pobox.com/~fhapgood
>