On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 17:06 -0300, Mark Boon wrote: > > On 10-aug-08, at 13:11, David Doshay wrote: > > > As an aside, the pro in question won the US Open, so comments about > > him being a weak pro seem inappropriate. > > > > > I don't see where anybody questioned the level of the pro. As far as > I'm concerned I consider a Korean (is that correct?) 8-dan pro to be > close enough to the ultimate top as to be indistinguishable for the > sake of this discussion. > > > All I tried to do was put this achievement in perspective to other > achievements in the past. I don't think anybody disputes the great > progress that has been made either, no matter the hardware > requirements. > > > I don't think a computer will beat a pro on even in ten years just > using the faster hardware that will be avaliable by then. I believe > considerable improvements will have to be made in the software as > well. Is it impossible? No, it's not impossible. But it's impossible > to make predictions about it, IMO. If I had to put money on it I'd > rather go for 20 years than 10 years. But even 20 years isn't going to > be a lay-up.
It's really difficult making predictions but yours agree's with mine. I reserve the right to change my prediction in 5 or 10 more years :-) This is like predicting the weather - it's a lot easier to predict tomorrows weather than next weeks weather. But since it's so much fun, I wanted to do it with a degree of pragmatism. My prediction is based on the same type of pragmatic analysis that Bob Hearn nicely came up with, sprinkled with a little optimism about future improvement and I tried to disregard any personal hunches or prejudices likely to skew my calculation. But of course it's still just a guess. I'm not like Mr. Spock who's guesses are better than most peoples careful calculations. I'm also not factoring in societal upheavals that may make all of this irrelevant such as global disasters, Armageddon, etc. If I factor that in, I might have to add a few decades to the calculation! Of course there is also the possibility of some exciting new hardware breakthrough around the corner that doesn't just extend Moore's law, but blows it out of the water. - Don > > But if in ten years we have a million-CPU computer to our disposal and > there has been progress in the software in the order of 4-5 stones as > well we might be getting close. I say 'might', as I'd like to see more > games. Considering the low availability of such a powerful computer, > that data needed to make stronger claims is a bit hard to come by. > > > Mark > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
