Re: computer-go: A little Arithmetic

["Vlad Dumitrescu" <vladdu@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> As a chemical reaction based computer (human brain) can barely scan couple
> thousands sample data with bunch of rule-of-thumb to figure out a 9K
> evaluation formula, or be a supper player (e.g., 9K+), 361 modern
computers
> supposed to check all games human ever played would not have a single
> solution, what kind of model, architecture, or induction we were using?

Hi,

in my opinion, there are a few tricky things about your statement...

- the human brain has an unparralelled (yet) strength when it comes to
pattern recognition. Until we find out more about that, it will be difficult
to mimic it.Slow doesn't mean it's not powerful.
- why only 361 computers? 7453 would be ~20 times better, and 151975 would
be ~20 times more...
- "all games humans ever played"... probably 80% of them are not recorded,
and of the rest half are not publically available... where should they be
gotten from?

/Vlad
--------------------------------------------------------------
For God's sake, Smithers! It's not rocket
science, it's just brain surgery!
--------------------------------------------------------------