Re: [computer-go] Modern brute force search

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

   >But it's amazing how difficult  this very "simple" game is...
   >
   >Before  Chinook had the  big databases, ...
   >
   >Here is  the interesting point of  what I am  saying: Those incredible
   >search depths that Chinook could do, which could lose to Tinsley, were
   >many ply less than chess programs do right now!  And yet current chess
   >programs  are very  close  to the  playing  ability of  the very  best
   >players!
   >
   >Does everyone  see my point?  That's why  I say there must  still be a
   >very long way to go for  computer chess, and I extrapolate to GO.

   not sure. are you saying with a better db, the chess programs could be much 
   better? and that this may be true for go?


No, I'm not really talking about the databases.    I am just observing that
it takes a great deal of depth to match the best humans in checkers.   I'm
speculating that it would take even MORE depth to match in Chess,  and even
more than that to match in GO.   

To be honest, I think my reasoning doesn't apply to human levels,  only to
"ultimate" levels.    If the best chess program looked as deeply as Chinook
does, it would probably be better than any human by far.   But I'm saying
it would be a lot farther from perfect play in chess than it is in checkers.

In other words, humans are close  to perfect in checkers, but very far
from perfect in chess and I'm guessing even farther away in GO.   But I'm
really wondering if humans are farther away in GO.   I'm starting to think
Chess is harder than GO.

- Don

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