My opinion is based on a test I did a year ago, when I bought Handtalk,
Silver Igo and ManyFaces (and I think Michael Reiss' program as well) during
a short visit to Japan. When I tried playing games against these programs, I
found that Goliath easily beat Silver Igo, but always lost to the others in
what looked like fairly close games/fights. Giving Goliath two stones
handicap made it win all its games. I think I only tried two games each in
each test, that would make 14 games total. Still I think this can be
qualified as 'marginally stronger'. Goliath has the algorithm of 1991 and
played all its games in just a minute or two. Ten years ago it would take on
average 45 minutes to complete a game on what was then the fastest Macintosh
available. The programs I bought at the time may not be the latest and
greatest in Go software anymore, but I didn't get the impression much
changed in the meantime.
Ten years ago, Handtalk was not much weaker than Goliath I think, even if
the other programs were. Those other programs like ManyFaces seem to have
made enough progress to surpass Goliath today, but the point I tried to make
is that the 'index value' of how well the current hardware is used is very
low.
This is also not to say that other programs don't use the computer power of
todays hardware to get a little stronger. But I believe the same level can
be achieved with a computer that runs 100 times slower. It just would take
more effort to do so. The discussion here is how efficiently does the
hardware get used by current Go programs and my opinion is that that
efficiency is very, very low. The results against a ten year old program
provides some proof to this. This is not necessarily a criticism of Go
programs because I think nowadays this is the case with almost all software.
Hardware is cheap and programmers are scarce/expensive so there's a strong
tendency to look for solutions that reduce the amount of programming time in
return for using more computing power.
Although I love hardware to get faster with more memory all the time, there
are days when I wish for it to stop. This in the hope that software makers
would start spending time in fixing existing problems in their software and
make it more efficient instead for the perpetual flight forwards into more
bells and whistles. Go programs don't fall in that category of course, any
means by which the program can get stronger should be used.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 1:37 AM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: computer-go: Computer Go hardware
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> You say the strongest programs of today are only marginally stronger.
> I'm not in a good position to know if this is true or not, but can you
> (or someone) try to quantify this a little better? I'm interested in
> a rough compilation of the following information, even if it's a
> guess:
>
> 1. What do you mean by only mariginally? In a 100 game match
> with no handicap, would todays very best program have
> a good chance of losing to the best 10 year old program on 10 year
> old hardware? What would be the "expected" score?
>
> 2. If I had a competitive program 10 years ago, then I would
> not have to maintain it, it would still be competive today
> even with that old 10 year old computer. Is this true or false?
>
> 3. Does the hardware make any difference? Will the newest and
> best programs play equally well on ANY old machine, say a 486
> class machine (with no extra time allowance of course)?
>
> This is an important point, because if the answer is YES, hardware
> makes a difference, and there has been no improvement, then the
> only difference in todays software is that it takes a more powerful
> computer to play just as well, a kind of negative progress.
>
>
> In other messages from this group, I have been told that the
> programmers have adjusted their algorithms as hardware has improved.
> This directly implies that it's possible to take advantage, if even a
> little, of additional computing power. And if the improvement has
> only been marginal, then it almost seems like all the improvments
> (what little there has been) is all based on extra computing power.
>
> We could actually do the test, I'm sure someone has hardware that
> represents a PC from 1991 and an old program.
>
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> From: "Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:57:42 +0200
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
> Importance: Normal
> Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0C1F0.1F5C0510"
> Content-Length: 4208
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0C1F0.1F5C0510
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> My 2 cents worth: the strongest programs of today are only marginally
> stronger than they were 10 years ago, when computers were 100
> times slower
> than they are today. So I think it's fair to say the
> efficiency index value
> would actually be (significantly) lower than 0.01. So your value 0.7 is
> quite a wild guess indeed. If I would have to make a wild
> guess, I'd rather
> put it in the 0.001 to 0.0001 range. And since the programs don't get
> stronger with more processing power (not yet, anyway), the index is
> subjective to getting halved about every 18 months.
>
> Mark
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Compgo123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:23 PM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: computer-go: Computer Go hardware
> [ stuff deleteded ]
>
> We may define a concept, calling it the 'logic
> efficiency index'. For a best possible program, the index
> value is 1. I'll
> make a wild quess here. Today's best program has an index
> value about 0.7.
> A
> related question is, for Go, what's the relation between the
> index value
> and
> the amount of programming?
> [ stuff deleteded ]
>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0C1F0.1F5C0510
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
> http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
> class=3D359254816-10042001>My 2=20
> cents worth: the strongest programs of today are only marginally =
> stronger than=20
> they were 10 years ago, when computers were 100 times slower
> than they =
> are=20
> today. So I think it's fair to say the efficiency index
> value would =
>
> actually be (significantly) lower than 0.01. So your value 0.7
> is quite =
> a wild=20
> guess indeed. If I would have to make a wild guess, I'd rather
> put it in =
> the=20
> 0.001 to 0.0001 range. And since the programs don't get stronger with =
> more=20
> processing power (not yet, anyway), the index is subjective to
> getting =
> halved=20
> about every 18 months.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D359254816-10042001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D359254816-10042001> Mark</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE=20
> style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
> PADDING-LEFT: =
> 5px">
> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New
> Roman"><FONT =
>
> size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
> owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
> [mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<B>On Behalf Of</B>=20
> Compgo123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:23=20
> PM<BR><B>To:</B> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> =
> computer-go:=20
> Computer Go hardware<BR><FONT color=3D#0000ff></FONT><FONT =
> size=3D2><FONT=20
> face=3DArial><SPAN class=3D359254816-10042001> <FONT =
> color=3D#000000=20
> face=3D"Times New Roman"> [ stuff deleteded=20
> ]</FONT> </SPAN><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>We may define
> a concept, =
> calling it=20
> the 'logic <BR>efficiency index'. For a best possible program, the =
> index value=20
> is 1. I'll <BR>make a wild quess here. Today's best program has an =
> index value=20
> about 0.7. A <BR>related question is, for Go, what's the relation =
> between the=20
> index value and <BR>the amount of
> programming? </FONT> <FONT =
>
> color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D359254816-10042001> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
> class=3D359254816-10042001>[ stuff deleteded=20
> =
> ] <BR> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0C1F0.1F5C0510--
>
>
>