4 ms·

> The news flies under the radar because for most people Go is now solved (compare to what happened after Deep Blue's win). "Machines reaching a level of play

> The news flies under the radar because for most people Go is now solved (compare to what happened after Deep Blue's win). "Machines reaching a level of play that is consistently better than humans" and "the game is solved" are two completely different statements and it isn't particularly useful to conflate them. We will likely never be able to solve Go in the formal sense.

hkmurakami 10y ago
The key though is "for most people". We live in a post-fact society, remember? ;)
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  Quite. gcp is lamenting the same conflation as msbarnett.
- rwallace 10y ago
  I don't think there is a factual disagreement here, just a terminology issue. Mathematical jargon is not quite the same language as plain English. In the former, 'solved' by default means you have found the mathematically perfect solution. In the latter, 'solved' by default just means you have found a solution good enough for practical purposes.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
new299 10y ago
Go on smaller boards is solved (5x5). Solving on 9x9 or larger is likely not possible.
wallace_f 10y ago
>"Machines reaching a level of play that is consistently better than humans" and "the game is solved" are two completely different statements and it isn't particularly useful to conflate them. Very good point >We will likely never be able to solve Go in the formal sense. I'm not sure if it would be precise to say chess will be solved either. The number of outcomes in a 50-move chess game approaches Graham's Number--a number larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe. In a 100-move game, the number would be many orders of magnitude than an already incomprehensibly large number. So chess also will probably in a precise definition of the word, also never be solved. Edit: It's kind of mind boggling to think about every atom in the universe representing one position in a game of chess and there not being enough atoms in the universe to represent each one.
- laxd 10y ago
  > It's kind of mind boggling to think about every atom in the universe representing one position in a game of chess and there not being enough atoms in the universe to represent each one. Chess players mentions this a lot. And then they consider chess a sport. For a sport, it shure is a mind boggingly low number of game states :) (ps: I don't mean to start an uninteresting sport-or-not debate. It is what it is.)
- RexetBlell 10y ago
  The number of outcomes in a 50-move chess game does not even come close to the Graham's Number. 10^(number of outcomes in a 50-move chess games) also does not come close.
  - prezjordan 10y ago
    Even 10^10^10... (repeat this the number of outcomes in a 50-move chess game) does not come close to Graham's number.
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      Thanks, I was wrong about that. I swore I read that somewhere, turns out it was on a chess forum--not a source I should have committed to long-term memory. I did find this interesting statement about Graham's number (unsure of the veracity): > Graham's number is greater than all of the Planck lengths in the universe. There literally isn't room in the universe to write it out in numerical form. Edit: It looks like we confused Graham's Number for Shannon's number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number But according to the Wiki on Shannon's number, a the number of possible outcomes in chess does still far exceed the number of atoms in the universe: >Allis also estimated the game-tree complexity to be at least 10123, "based on an average branching factor of 35 and an average game length of 80". As a comparison, the number of atoms in the observable universe, to which it is often compared, is estimated to be between 4×10^79 and 4×10^81.
      - 10y ago

hkmurakami 10y ago

The key though is "for most people". We live in a post-fact society, remember? ;)

andrewflnr 10y ago
Quite. gcp is lamenting the same conflation as msbarnett.
rwallace 10y ago
I don't think there is a factual disagreement here, just a terminology issue. Mathematical jargon is not quite the same language as plain English. In the former, 'solved' by default means you have found the mathematically perfect solution. In the latter, 'solved' by default just means you have found a solution good enough for practical purposes.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

new299 10y ago

Go on smaller boards is solved (5x5). Solving on 9x9 or larger is likely not possible.

wallace_f 10y ago

>"Machines reaching a level of play that is consistently better than humans" and "the game is solved" are two completely different statements and it isn't particularly useful to conflate them. Very good point >We will likely never be able to solve Go in the formal sense. I'm not sure if it would be precise to say chess will be solved either. The number of outcomes in a 50-move chess game approaches Graham's Number--a number larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe. In a 100-move game, the number would be many orders of magnitude than an already incomprehensibly large number. So chess also will probably in a precise definition of the word, also never be solved. Edit: It's kind of mind boggling to think about every atom in the universe representing one position in a game of chess and there not being enough atoms in the universe to represent each one.

laxd 10y ago
> It's kind of mind boggling to think about every atom in the universe representing one position in a game of chess and there not being enough atoms in the universe to represent each one. Chess players mentions this a lot. And then they consider chess a sport. For a sport, it shure is a mind boggingly low number of game states :) (ps: I don't mean to start an uninteresting sport-or-not debate. It is what it is.)
RexetBlell 10y ago
The number of outcomes in a 50-move chess game does not even come close to the Graham's Number. 10^(number of outcomes in a 50-move chess games) also does not come close.
- prezjordan 10y ago
  Even 10^10^10... (repeat this the number of outcomes in a 50-move chess game) does not come close to Graham's number.
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    Thanks, I was wrong about that. I swore I read that somewhere, turns out it was on a chess forum--not a source I should have committed to long-term memory. I did find this interesting statement about Graham's number (unsure of the veracity): > Graham's number is greater than all of the Planck lengths in the universe. There literally isn't room in the universe to write it out in numerical form. Edit: It looks like we confused Graham's Number for Shannon's number: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number But according to the Wiki on Shannon's number, a the number of possible outcomes in chess does still far exceed the number of atoms in the universe: >Allis also estimated the game-tree complexity to be at least 10123, "based on an average branching factor of 35 and an average game length of 80". As a comparison, the number of atoms in the observable universe, to which it is often compared, is estimated to be between 4×10^79 and 4×10^81.
    - 10y ago