Re: [computer-go] Computer Go tournament at EGF

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

> ..  on the other hand they are referencing a theory that has no
> ..  possible use in an implementation to "prove" how easy it is to
> ..  do something that has not been done.

No, we are only trying to illustrate the simple concept that if given
more time you can write a stronger program, which on the one hand you
deny when it's convenient for you, and on the other hand you prove
with YOUR program.   

- Don





   X-Original-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   From: David G Doshay <ddoshay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:40:24 -0800
   Reply-To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Sender: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   X-Spam-Score: -5.811
   X-Spam-Flag: NO
   X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42

   On 12, Feb 2005, at 10:03 AM, Chris Fant wrote:
   >
   > This is silly.

   I agree. I find it very silly for people to say that it is easy to write
   a strong Go program.

   On 12, Feb 2005, at 10:05 AM, Evan Daniel wrote:

   > Be reasonable.

   Perhaps this is coming off as an unreasonable flame-war, but
   that is not my intent. On one hand folks are treating the arbitrary
   choice of 1 hour per program as if it is carved in stone, and on
   the other hand they are referencing a theory that has no
   possible use in an implementation to "prove" how easy it is to
   do something that has not been done.

   > Full search (full breadth, full depth) WILL play a
   > perfect game.  It just won't make its first move before the end of the
   > universe, let alone in our lifetimes.

   Well, then the only difference between that "Go program" and one
   with pseudo code:

	   opponent_move goes_to devnull
	   wait

   is that the above pseudo-code won't have an out of memory crash
   when running on any computer ever built. Yes, I know ... silly. That
   is exactly the problem with theoretical algorithms that effectively
   never finish.

   I accept fully that all computation takes place with finite resources
   and only has value when it completes in reasonable time. The
   discussion should focus upon what is reasonable time. I only
   started this discussion to point out that while one hour per program
   is often used, and has a specific convenience factor, it is arbitrary
   and that it might be interesting to try something longer.

   Considering that SlugGo is the first time in years that a new
   program has leap-frogged another program at or near the top of
   the pack, it might be of interest to some folks to see it run. If I am
   mistaken and nobody wants to know about a another strong
   program until it plays in under an hour then it seems to me that
   computer Go will not progress at a very fast pace. But that is just
   my opinion.

   > So, your challenge has an implied time limit, which I will take to be
   > "within the attention span of this mailing list."

   Which surely must be reaching its limit.

   > Therefore, your challenge is whether a 1d program can be written that
   > will play within a few days (weeks?) per move, at a maximum.

   I left that to him. As I specifically stated in an earlier email, I have
   a long history of far more patience than most when it comes to
   waiting for a computation.

   I would be thrilled to see a 1 dan program. One move per day or
   week would not matter to me. I accept that your milage may vary
   and have no problem recognizing the inconvenience of one that
   takes a month per move(17 years per game if both players play
   that slow). I have played Go by US Mail and that is slow too ...
   and in my case nowhere near the 1 dan level.

   > All that said, my program is slow too, and I think that slow programs
   > can be interesting, so I'm in favor of there being a longer time-limit
   > tournament.

   I would love it for this discussion to return to that issue, so I won't
   respond again to the side issue of theoretical constructs that have
   no meaningful use, or of how easy it might be to write a program
   that depends upon such theories.

   Cheers, (and I do mean it cheerfully!)
   David


   _______________________________________________
   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/