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

[Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxx>]

And we took this discussion offline,  so it's not an issue any longer.

- Don



   Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 08:29:49 -0500
   From: Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   > ..  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/

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