4 ms·

They computed results for a bunch of 36-empty-squares positions on their clusters and uploaded them to https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Analyses_of_the_Gam

by devit 3y ago

They computed results for a bunch of 36-empty-squares positions on their clusters and uploaded them to https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Analyses_of_the_Game_of_Othello_s_Positions/24420619 https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Analyses_of_the_Game_o... The script at https://github.com/eukaryo/reversi-scripts/blob/main/reversi_player.py https://github.com/eukaryo/reversi-scripts/blob/main/reversi... plays perfectly (assuming the whole thing is correct) a bunch of data computed by other scripts in the repository using the 36-empty-squares solutions, for which a regular machine is presumably suitable. It seems that what it does is essentially look up a <=300GB table with all positions with 37-64 empty squares reachable from the weak solution, and runs edax with "-solve" for positions with <=36 empty squares.

b33j0r 3y ago
I’m not taking a stance on “Othello is solved”, but offer a digression about a lookup table being a valid solution to a tractable problem, or its subproblem. I don’t see a lot of people saying this (not parent either), but I know that many hope for closed-form solutions to things, even secretly. It just dang doesn’t look that way anymore. Weird when a finite set is sufficient to prove subproblems that cover a perplexingly different or larger domain. Whether a proof is accepted or not, we’ll still kinda wonder on the structure of special cases in computational complexity. They seem to work unreasonably well, and we rarely find them by hand/brainmeat.