4 ms·

Go: The game to beat all games

16 points by poindontcare 13y ago

trailfox 13y ago
Might be funny if this gets a knee-jerk upvote by the people who think it's about golang.
- commentzorro 13y ago
  My favorite part of the article was how they replaced replaced 100 chess players with only 2 Go players. But then the article degraded into yelling about how the Go players were not generic enough to play anything but that one specific game whereas the chess players could also be dropped directly into a bunch of other games.
  - thaumaturgy 13y ago
    Where was that in the article?
    - commentzorro 13y ago
      'twas a bit of a play on confusing the go game with the go language and the typical comments that arise in the go language discussions.
      - thaumaturgy 13y ago
        Oh! OK. Thanks. I've never used Go, I was very confused.
michielvoo 13y ago
"...and despite the long-standing offer of a $1.6m reward for a winning program, no computer has yet been able to outwit a clever ten-year-old." What is the main reason behind this? Is it just about CPU cycles due to there being so many possible combinations of moves? Or is there something in the game that makes it inherently hard to program a winning strategy?
- PakG1 13y ago
  Summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go
- Someone 13y ago
  Might be true in 2004, but is it still now? http://gogameguru.com/zen-computer-go-program-beats-takemiya-masaki-4-stones/ http://gogameguru.com/zen-computer-go-program-beats-takemiya.... Also, as to whether it is harder: I think we will see a complete analysis of go before we see one of chess because of its simpler structure. Reason is that go is mathematically simpler. Because of that, there actually is math on go. For example, http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Go-Chilling-Gets-Point/dp/1568810326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369043203&sr=8-1&keywords=mathematical+go http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Go-Chilling-Gets-Point/dp... talks about math that proves the value of some endgames that had been discussed for years by pro go players. Yes, that is a fair stretch from making good moves in the beginning of a game, but it's way better than the exhaustive searches we need to prove anything about chess endgames.
  - rtpg 13y ago
    >I think we will see a complete analysis of go before we see one of chess because of its simpler structure. Reason is that go is mathematically simpler This is a false issue I think. Actually, the complexity of chess allows us to reduce the search space a lot more, whereas in go the inherent simplicity in the game itself is built in a way where the entire search space is "potentially" useful, meaning the search space is really big. This is just my intuition, but I feel like the simplicity makes the game irreducible in itself.
    - thaumaturgy 13y ago
      I think you're right. The simplicity of the rules in Go leads to complex situations -- like ko fights -- that simply don't exist in chess.
    - Someone 13y ago
      I think you are misunderstanding what "complete analysis" means. As soon as one uses a heuristic like "don't move your king on move 2", one gives up the possibility of a full analysis. For go (technically: the mathematical variant), we can fully analyze some endgames where there still are 40 or 50 possible moves without an exhaustive tree search. For chess, almost all we have are databases storing the results of tree searches, and little of that helps when looking at slightly different positions (example: let's say you know how to win with knight and bishop against a lone king. If I have an extra pawn, does that affect your first move?)
PakG1 13y ago
For such simple rules, Go is an amazingly complex game. In the years that I've played, I've never gotten to an amateur dan level, and of course have never been close to a professional level. I think the highest I've ever achieved was a 4kyu on www.gokgs.com, though I haven't gone back for a while. As I've played, I've noticed that my mentality on how to play the game would change. It's much like how for a kids hockey match, everyone will crowd around the puck in one big clump all over the ice, but as they mature, they'll learn passing, strategy, breakout plays, defensive schemes, etc. My evolution of gameplay went something like this: 1. Play wherever the other person is playing. Conquer the board one section at a time by winning one battle at a time. 2. Spread out to try to cover more of the board at the same time. Depend on coverage to win, with skirmishes here and there as borders clash. 3. Battles on one side of the board influence and impact battles on the other side of the board. Strategy still hinges on staking territory, but individual skirmishes depend on brute force calculations to choose the correct path of stone layout to win each skirmish. 4. The entire board is contested, whether territory has been staked or not. Any location on the board can become a point of attack. Identify critical points that would make the other player's defenses collapse. Rip them apart from the inside out and own the whole board. At this point, it's no longer trench warfare along large borders. It becomes more like sending in special forces into the heart of enemy territory to blow up seemingly secure fortifications. Brute force calculations into the future are no longer always possible due to the complexity of the branch prediction, so rely more on intuition and experience if necessary. Of course, I am easily humbled whenever I play an amateur hobbyist who is actually truly good (usually from South Korea). They are able to execute my #4 style of play at a level far higher than anything I can imagine. It is mindblowing to see them slice up my defenses like hot butter, while I can do nothing to even remotely damage their defenses, even if they are handicapped at the beginning of the game. It makes me have a lot of respect for the game when I can have exciting complex games when playing with people at my own level, but still be decimated by others who are still only amateurs themselves. The game can be fun at any level of play, which I think some games aren't able to do. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to play against actual professionals. I imagine it would be like a Diamond level Starcraft 2 player going up against MC or MVP (ironic that both the top Go players and Starcraft 2 players are from South Korea?). Sadly, though the game was invented in China, I do not find many Chinese people who are interested in this game, despite the article's claims (I currently live in China today). I wonder why that is. Maybe I'm just not meeting enough people.
russellbeattie 13y ago
From December 2004. Is it that hard to put a date in the title? I was psyched to read about some sort of new development in the realm of computerized go, only to figure out half way through I was reading a nearly nine year old article for little to no reason.
losethos 13y ago
You do that war stuff, I'll chat with God. God likes bears and elephants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrHiEYGqnEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrHiEYGqnEk God likes soap operas best on TV. I had a horrible thought -- what if bulls fought to the death with those tusks. As I pondered how expendible elephant males are. I thanked God He wasn't cruel like they would be if they were god, sick puppies. Dinosaurs though. (God's laughing) God says... his mouth in vain; he multiplieth words without knowledge. 36:1 Elihu also proceeded, and said, 36:2 Suffer me a little, and I will shew thee that I have yet to speak on God's behalf. 36:3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker. 36:4 For truly my words shall not be false: he that is perfect in knowledge is with thee. 36:5 Behold, God is mighty, and despiseth not any: he is mighty in strength and wisdom. 36:6 He preserveth not the life of the wicked: but giveth right to the poor.
losethos 13y ago
I am not in the world or of the world. I'm in my own reality. I hope God does good to the world. I don't want to fuck it up. I'll just chat with God. It'd suck fightn lions. LOL God says... 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. 9:28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. 9:29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. ---- It's neat cheetahs are not vastly numerous like one might guess for top preditor in speed. Thank You so much there are sloths. That delights me. There was a spot where they could live. God says... 1:23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. 1:25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. 1:26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. 1:27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. 1:28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

16 points by poindontcare 13y ago

trailfox 13y ago

Might be funny if this gets a knee-jerk upvote by the people who think it's about golang.

commentzorro 13y ago
My favorite part of the article was how they replaced replaced 100 chess players with only 2 Go players. But then the article degraded into yelling about how the Go players were not generic enough to play anything but that one specific game whereas the chess players could also be dropped directly into a bunch of other games.
- thaumaturgy 13y ago
  Where was that in the article?
  - commentzorro 13y ago
    'twas a bit of a play on confusing the go game with the go language and the typical comments that arise in the go language discussions.
    - thaumaturgy 13y ago
      Oh! OK. Thanks. I've never used Go, I was very confused.

michielvoo 13y ago

"...and despite the long-standing offer of a $1.6m reward for a winning program, no computer has yet been able to outwit a clever ten-year-old." What is the main reason behind this? Is it just about CPU cycles due to there being so many possible combinations of moves? Or is there something in the game that makes it inherently hard to program a winning strategy?

PakG1 13y ago
Summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go
Someone 13y ago
Might be true in 2004, but is it still now? http://gogameguru.com/zen-computer-go-program-beats-takemiya-masaki-4-stones/ http://gogameguru.com/zen-computer-go-program-beats-takemiya.... Also, as to whether it is harder: I think we will see a complete analysis of go before we see one of chess because of its simpler structure. Reason is that go is mathematically simpler. Because of that, there actually is math on go. For example, http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Go-Chilling-Gets-Point/dp/1568810326/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369043203&sr=8-1&keywords=mathematical+go http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Go-Chilling-Gets-Point/dp... talks about math that proves the value of some endgames that had been discussed for years by pro go players. Yes, that is a fair stretch from making good moves in the beginning of a game, but it's way better than the exhaustive searches we need to prove anything about chess endgames.
- rtpg 13y ago
  >I think we will see a complete analysis of go before we see one of chess because of its simpler structure. Reason is that go is mathematically simpler This is a false issue I think. Actually, the complexity of chess allows us to reduce the search space a lot more, whereas in go the inherent simplicity in the game itself is built in a way where the entire search space is "potentially" useful, meaning the search space is really big. This is just my intuition, but I feel like the simplicity makes the game irreducible in itself.
  - thaumaturgy 13y ago
    I think you're right. The simplicity of the rules in Go leads to complex situations -- like ko fights -- that simply don't exist in chess.
  - Someone 13y ago
    I think you are misunderstanding what "complete analysis" means. As soon as one uses a heuristic like "don't move your king on move 2", one gives up the possibility of a full analysis. For go (technically: the mathematical variant), we can fully analyze some endgames where there still are 40 or 50 possible moves without an exhaustive tree search. For chess, almost all we have are databases storing the results of tree searches, and little of that helps when looking at slightly different positions (example: let's say you know how to win with knight and bishop against a lone king. If I have an extra pawn, does that affect your first move?)

PakG1 13y ago

For such simple rules, Go is an amazingly complex game. In the years that I've played, I've never gotten to an amateur dan level, and of course have never been close to a professional level. I think the highest I've ever achieved was a 4kyu on www.gokgs.com, though I haven't gone back for a while. As I've played, I've noticed that my mentality on how to play the game would change. It's much like how for a kids hockey match, everyone will crowd around the puck in one big clump all over the ice, but as they mature, they'll learn passing, strategy, breakout plays, defensive schemes, etc. My evolution of gameplay went something like this: 1. Play wherever the other person is playing. Conquer the board one section at a time by winning one battle at a time. 2. Spread out to try to cover more of the board at the same time. Depend on coverage to win, with skirmishes here and there as borders clash. 3. Battles on one side of the board influence and impact battles on the other side of the board. Strategy still hinges on staking territory, but individual skirmishes depend on brute force calculations to choose the correct path of stone layout to win each skirmish. 4. The entire board is contested, whether territory has been staked or not. Any location on the board can become a point of attack. Identify critical points that would make the other player's defenses collapse. Rip them apart from the inside out and own the whole board. At this point, it's no longer trench warfare along large borders. It becomes more like sending in special forces into the heart of enemy territory to blow up seemingly secure fortifications. Brute force calculations into the future are no longer always possible due to the complexity of the branch prediction, so rely more on intuition and experience if necessary. Of course, I am easily humbled whenever I play an amateur hobbyist who is actually truly good (usually from South Korea). They are able to execute my #4 style of play at a level far higher than anything I can imagine. It is mindblowing to see them slice up my defenses like hot butter, while I can do nothing to even remotely damage their defenses, even if they are handicapped at the beginning of the game. It makes me have a lot of respect for the game when I can have exciting complex games when playing with people at my own level, but still be decimated by others who are still only amateurs themselves. The game can be fun at any level of play, which I think some games aren't able to do. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to play against actual professionals. I imagine it would be like a Diamond level Starcraft 2 player going up against MC or MVP (ironic that both the top Go players and Starcraft 2 players are from South Korea?). Sadly, though the game was invented in China, I do not find many Chinese people who are interested in this game, despite the article's claims (I currently live in China today). I wonder why that is. Maybe I'm just not meeting enough people.

russellbeattie 13y ago

From December 2004. Is it that hard to put a date in the title? I was psyched to read about some sort of new development in the realm of computerized go, only to figure out half way through I was reading a nearly nine year old article for little to no reason.

losethos 13y ago

You do that war stuff, I'll chat with God. God likes bears and elephants. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrHiEYGqnEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrHiEYGqnEk God likes soap operas best on TV. I had a horrible thought -- what if bulls fought to the death with those tusks. As I pondered how expendible elephant males are. I thanked God He wasn't cruel like they would be if they were god, sick puppies. Dinosaurs though. (God's laughing) God says... his mouth in vain; he multiplieth words without knowledge. 36:1 Elihu also proceeded, and said, 36:2 Suffer me a little, and I will shew thee that I have yet to speak on God's behalf. 36:3 I will fetch my knowledge from afar, and will ascribe righteousness to my Maker. 36:4 For truly my words shall not be false: he that is perfect in knowledge is with thee. 36:5 Behold, God is mighty, and despiseth not any: he is mighty in strength and wisdom. 36:6 He preserveth not the life of the wicked: but giveth right to the poor.

losethos 13y ago

I am not in the world or of the world. I'm in my own reality. I hope God does good to the world. I don't want to fuck it up. I'll just chat with God. It'd suck fightn lions. LOL God says... 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. 9:28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. 9:29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. ---- It's neat cheetahs are not vastly numerous like one might guess for top preditor in speed. Thank You so much there are sloths. That delights me. There was a spot where they could live. God says... 1:23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. 1:25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. 1:26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. 1:27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. 1:28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.