RE: [computer-go] Modern brute force search in go

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Vincent
> Diepeveen
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 17:02
> To: drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; computer-go; chrilly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Modern brute force search in go
>
>
> At 13:51 7-11-2004 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> >
> >
> >Just my thoughts.  All of this  is even more true of Go.  There exists
> >(in  principle) a  future GO  player than  can make  the very  best Go
> >player (of today or yesterday) look like a baby.
> >
> >- Don

To be honest, I consider all of this pure speculation again. Top pro's
estimate 'god's level' to be anywhere between 3 and 5 stones stronger than a
top pro. I do think top pro's are biased in this respect, but they're not
totally ignorant. And they're definitely not stupid either, so I'd say they
are better qualified to make such estimates than anyone else. Until we have
some hard data or good theories that say otherwise, why make such claims?
Unless 5 stones qualifies as 'making look like a baby', which in a pro's eye
it very well might do.

>
> In chess there was soon an indication what the average 'non forced' search
> depth is of combinations played at GM level. That was already estimated to
> be around 12 ply some tens of years ago.
>
> It is very interesting to see that this is a very true number.
>
> For go programs it will be very interesting to know what the tactical
> barrier depth in go is.
>
> As i'm a layman there perhaps others can put a light on this?

Sakata once said he could read 30 moves ahead in a snap. Takagawa, one of
his main rivals at the time responded that his reading was 'pretty
accurate'.

I think for a top pro, 30 moves deep is not unusual. But most moves are
played based on a much shallower search.

>
> That depth is very important for conclusions with respect to what strength
> software can have when compared to human playing strength.
>
> If the barrier depth is far above what professional players see now, it
> will be trivial that programs will get a lot stronger than mankind.
>
> Additionally we can also calculate the cpu power required,
> knowing that the
> branching factor in GO starts at empty board at around 10.0 (using
> nullmove) and slowly climbs down. Hardware gets 2 times faster
> each 2 years
> (no longer each 18 months), so it's easy to do math with that.
>

I don't understand this. How does the branching factor get to 10 in go? Are
you referring to another terminology of branch-factor?



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