Re: [computer-go] Score estimating

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

Chrilly,

I'm no  expert on  this but I  think speed  is always critical  in any
game.  Speed and memory are  to computers what intelligence is to man.
It's just  that none  of us has  figured out  how to write  a scalable
program (which is  also a good program.)  From what  I've been able to
determine,  the best  programs either  just have  1 level  setting, or
contrived settings not really based on being able to utilize computing
power.  Most of them play almost instant moves even though the game is
much harder than chess.  It's  as if nobody knows what computations to
do that will use the cycles and still play significantly better.

Therefore  the  emphasis is  on  the  expressiveness  of the  language
because it's more important to explore and experiment at this point.

I think what you  are seeing with Java is not that  it is suited to go
programming, it's just very popular.  It's not particularly expressive
OR fast, but it's a good  compromise in both directions.  It IS faster
than most of  the goodd expressive languages though  it's no match for
C. 

I have been  looking at a relatively new  computer language that comes
very close  to C  in performance,  but is actually  a very  high level
expressive language.  The  issue for me, is that  I tend to experiment
with  ideas to  the extent  that it  takes too  long to  be constantly
reworking  the code.  The  best language  for doing  this seems  to be
Python  or  Ruby  (I  believe   Ruby  is  cleaner  and  slightly  more
expressive.)  Unfortunately, these  languages really kill performance.
But  the language  "Ocaml"  seems to  be  the best  compromise in  all
regards, it's extrememly fast and extremely expressive.  It's actually
easy to  learn even for  us old-timers who  are used to  the procedure
oriented languages we learned on.


- Don





   X-Original-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   From: "chrilly" <chrilly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 10:55:16 +0200
   Content-Type: text/plain;
	   charset="iso-8859-1"
   X-Priority: 3
   X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
   X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
   X-AntiSpam: Checked for restricted content by Gordano's AntiSpam Software
   X-BeenThere: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
   Precedence: list
   Reply-To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   List-Id: computer-go <computer-go.computer-go.org>
   List-Unsubscribe: <http://hosting.midvalleyhosting.com/mailman/listinfo/computer-go>,
	   <mailto:computer-go-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe>
   List-Archive: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go>
   List-Post: <mailto:computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   List-Help: <mailto:computer-go-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=help>
   List-Subscribe: <http://hosting.midvalleyhosting.com/mailman/listinfo/computer-go>,
	   <mailto:computer-go-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe>
   Sender: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

   >
   >By the way: I am working in java, if anyone wants to know.
   >
   I realized that several Go projects are written in Java. I am an hacker from
   the computer-stone-age and have written the time critical parts of my
   chessprograms in Assembler. Is Java not considerable slower than C/C++? Or
   is this not true anymore? Or does speed not matter in a Go-Programm. Is ease
   of programming more important? (Although I see in this respect no big
   difference between C(++) and Java).

   My question has nothing to do with score-estimation, but I wanted to ask
   this already on other contributions who mentioned Java. Actually the real
   background of this question is that I have difficulties to understand the
   Go-programming paradigm. Speed is everything in chess and it is therefore
   difficult to imagine, that it should not be in Go.

   There were some plans to write together with Peter Woitke (GoAhead) a new
   Go-program. One of Peters basic requirements was: If time and/or processing
   power increases, the strength of the programm increases. Especially if time
   goes to infinity, the playing strength does the same.
   I had problems to understand this requirement at all because in
   computer-chess it is obvious. But Go programs seem to have a problem to use
   "infinite" time or processing power. One consequence of this paradigm is:
   Although there are much more moves than in chess, the time setting for a
   computer-Go game is much shorter. If there appear programs who could use
   time wisely one would have to discuss this settings.

   Best Regards
   Chrilly Donninger




   _______________________________________________
   computer-go mailing list
   computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/