Re: Re: computer-go: minimax and go

[Rong Zeng <rodneyzeng@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Vlad Dumitrescu

You are right in last statement. But I think what we are trying to do will be still important because we human never become satisfied when we have even the most advanced tools. After we have quantum computer, we will still want it to do what it's hard for it. 
And we cannot just wait for it.
Actually I don't think go game could be fully calculated by any quantum computer because the number's HUGE than the number of all the quantums in this universe.

In 00-11-9 10:32:00 you wrote:
>> Have you calculated on your model: How much more computing power would you                 
>> need to get a perfect chess player? Assuming Moore's "law" holds, how long
>> would *that* take? And how long until we can have your perfect go player,
>> that searches the whole game? If we assume that there are some theoretical
>> limits on the size and speed of a processor (a switching unit the size of
>> electron, not working faster than light goes through it, perhaps), how
>fast
>> can this thing of yours ever play? How many parallel processors will it
>> need? Will there be enough material and time in the universe to play the
>> perfect game?
>
>Just a (philosophical) note: let's not forget that technology goes forward
>all the time, and todays architecture and hardware are just nothing against
>tomorrow's... If for example the quantum computers will be able to provide
>what they are promising, then the perspective will change radically!
>
>/Vlad
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>For God's sake, Smithers! It's not rocket
>science, it's just brain surgery!
>--------------------------------------------------------------


Regards,
 Rong Zeng
 rodneyzeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com