Re: computer-go: perfect play

["Vlad Dumitrescu" <vladdu@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > VD> Thus it is beyond anyone's power to prove anything about the strength of the
> > VD> perfect player.
> 
> You don't  necessarily  need a proof.   Much  of  science is  based on
> probability and statistics.  It's might be possible, for example, that
> someone could present  overwhelming evidence that  a given lower bound
> is clear.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't trust anything statistical that isn't based on more than some millions of cases/events/units... more precisely, I can't really be sure that the result is truly correct.

> But Go on the other hand  is pretty scary!   

This brought another thought: the comparison chess-go is really pointless. One direct way to increase any game's complexity is to play it on a larger board. The current 8x8 and 19x19 sizes are only conventions. But the games essence is an invariant over the size of the board and should be the one to be comapred. But what is the game's essence?

(yes, i know it isn't straightforward to change the board size in chess; but in Go it's so easy... when 19x19 will become trivial, people will begin play on 21x21 and onwards!)

/Vlad