3 ms·

"...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 ma

"...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

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?)