Re: computer-go: minimax and go

["Clay ChipSmith" <weiqi@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Your response ignored my point.

Best Wishes, Clay ChipSmith   ><>   weiqi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, November 10, 2000 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: computer-go: minimax and go


>
>   From: "Clay ChipSmith" <weiqi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>   >A brute force program will "work."   Give me infinite computing power,
>   >or enough computing power  to search the  entire game tree and I  will
>   >write a perfect Go program.
>
>   Oh, you are so right.
>
>   >Short of that, I can  write a Go program
>   >that plays better with every hardware doubling of power.  It might not
>   >play much better,  it might even  be hard to  measure but it will play
>   >better on the average  with each doubling, until  it reaches the point
>   >where it can search the entire game tree.
>
>
>   An uninteresting argument at best.  Doubling every 2 years would require
>   over 60 years to catch a similar search depth as chess.
>
>So what?  I didn't make any claims about how long  it would take, only
>that it was scalable.
>
>Maybe you have a better idea?   How would you write  a program on that
>computer we will have in 60 years that doesn't do any kind of search?
>
>Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>