5 ms·
This is besides your main point, but I just want to add that the 'problem' of Go is not nearly solved. Rather, nearly solved is the problem of beating a human G
by doctorstupid 11y ago
This is besides your main point, but I just want to add that the 'problem' of Go is not nearly solved. Rather, nearly solved is the problem of beating a human Go player. There is quite a difference.
- platz 11y agoI wouldn't expect global maximums to even be definable for most problems
- emodendroket 11y agoI think a "solution" for Go is a program that can play to a win (or a draw, I guess) in any circumstance, right? I mean, like, you can create a tic-tac-toe program that plays perfectly and will never lose, but you cannot do this for go.
- drdeca 11y ago... Yet. Growth mindset.
- jacquesm 11y ago> the 'problem' of Go is not nearly solved. And it is very likely that it will never be, the number of combinations is simply too large.
- zardo 11y agoThat doesn't (necessarily) mean a proof can't be found that a certain ruleset leads to optimal play. Tic-tac-toe can be solved without examing the entire state space of the game.
- jacquesm 11y agoThat's mostly because of trivial symmetry and even taking that into account Go space is in the most literal sense astronomic, simple numbers don't work in describing just how large it is.