Re: [computer-go] Modern brute force search

[Chris Fant <chrisfant@xxxxxxxxx>]

One thing that usualy gets mentioned in these discussions but hasen't
been yet (unless it is in my big stack of unread mail) is that these
two games (chess and go) differ in a way that highlights the
difference between humans and computers.  What I'm talking about is
that go stones stay in place and build on each other whereas chess
pieces are constantly on the move.  This makes go ideal for our those
of you who can efficiently use you right brain along with your
internal search.  And makes chess harder because you simply lose sight
of what is going on a few moves ahead (for me, I mean VERY few).  To a
computer, it just doesn't matter.  You can see this in other games as
well.  Othello: computers rule b/c people confuse the board after some
reverals.  Checkers: basically the same as chess but with less rules.


On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 08:53:40 -0500, Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>    >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/
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/