Re: computer-go: new topics

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

I  suspect  that  someone  will  build a  5x5  database  despite  your
disapproval.  



   From: "fantius" <fantius@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:54:31 -0400

   Yes, perhaps, 4x5 or even 5x5 is possible on today's hardware, but is that
   something to be proud of?  Not in my opinion.  Is anyone proposing a novel
   way to solve a computer-Go issue?  Not in my opinion.  I know that I will be
   blasted for this email by some people, but here is my central point: The top
   Go programmers ( I don't need to name names ) are demonstrating respectable
   Go at 19x19.  The lure of perfect play is undeniable. However, at boardsize
   5x5, it is also irrelevant.  Perhaps some people are enchanted by how
   successful computer-chess has been using brute-force-based methods.  Perhaps
   some are enchanted by the exponential growth of dirt-cheap computational
   resources.  Either way, the discussion at hand is in no way furthering the
   progress of computer-Go.  Let's not kid ourselves, this is a combinatorial
   math problem, not a computer-Go problem.

   Since I realize that this email is a total downer, I am accompanying it with
   a list of possible future topics to keep the email list alive:

   1) Let's hear EVERYONE's state of the union address on their Go program (I
   would like for this to include everyone from Joe "my friend just taught me
   Go" Blow to Jesus "my manger was an Athlon-XP" Christ).

   2) I have been off Go-programming and on Poker-programming for several
   months now.  I enjoy both so much. Any other unemployed people out there
   that are devoting most of their resources to such cool projects?  (if I
   could stay on one instead of switching, I might have something releasable by
   now)

   3) David Fotland.  You have been a generous contributor to this group over
   the years.  We doubt that you have stopped innovating and we doubt that you
   have changed the way you feel about the computer-Go community, so out with
   it.  What are your latest innovations?

   4) Michael Reiss.  You are an obvious innovator in the field, but I would
   like see more descriptions of your understandings/algorithms.  Surely there
   is something you can contribute without fearing domination by clonage.

   P.S. These enumerated items are a wish list. In no way does anyone
   (especially named persons) owe anything to this group.