Re: computer-go: minimax and go

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

   >   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.

   Your response ignored my point.

I acknowledge and agree with your point.

Don










   From: "Clay ChipSmith" <weiqi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:43:13 -0600
   MIME-Version: 1.0
   Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
   X-Priority: 3
   X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
   X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
   X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
   Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Precedence: bulk
   Reply-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   Content-Type: text/plain;
	   charset="iso-8859-1"
   Content-Length: 1314

   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
   >