Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Lars,
{tongue firmly in cheek} Thank you!
All,
May I nominate we create a second mailing list called "god-go" and move
any and all discussions that involve infinite WHATEVER to that list? I
was reluctant to suggest this as it would reduce traffic on this list to
perhaps one post a decade...which likely would be about Peter Drake's
recent jump from C++/Java and back to the other. However, the fact that
two very active "god-go" chains have occurred in the last 90 days pushed
me into suggesting this "god-go" alternative discussion list solution.
Jim
Lars Nilsson wrote:
On 1/24/07, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
True i forgot about fantastic quantum-computer, which so far solved only
very specific and tiny problems or quantum mechanics.
In the spirit of this, lets bring the quantum computer built at U of
Illinois that computers its answer without actually running..
"By placing our photon in a quantum superposition of running and not
running the search algorithm, we obtained information about the answer
even when the photon did not run the search algorithm," said graduate
student Onur Hosten, lead author of the Nature paper. "We also showed
theoretically how to obtain the answer without ever running the
algorithm, by using a 'chained Zeno' effect."
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0222quantum.html
That should take care of any objection like the universe would end
before the computer finished searching the entire game-tree. ;)
Lars Nilsson
___
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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On 1/24/07, Weston Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 282 possible moves Um. Dunno where I got that number from. (I meant 362, I think.) Weston ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Taking recent comments out of context: - how about what is possible with a computer that has infinite memory and infinite speed? ... just try all possible programs ... and We also showed theoretically how to obtain the answer without ever running the algorithm ... Perhaps we can all agree the answer lies somewhere in this range? :) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Le jeudi 25 janvier 2007 02:16, Lars Nilsson a écrit : > In the spirit of this, lets bring the quantum computer built at U of > Illinois that computers its answer without actually running.. > > "By placing our photon in a quantum superposition of running and not > running the search algorithm, we obtained information about the answer > even when the photon did not run the search algorithm," said graduate > student Onur Hosten, lead author of the Nature paper. "We also showed > theoretically how to obtain the answer without ever running the > algorithm, by using a 'chained Zeno' effect." > > http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0222quantum.html > > That should take care of any objection like the universe would end > before the computer finished searching the entire game-tree. ;) They implemented Zenbot :) http://senseis.xmp.net/?ComputerGoServer#toc69 Alain. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Hi Weston, I is only necessary to store a table with 1 bit per position, either it's a win or a loss (I'm assuming Chinese rules with some fixed komi.) If you want to be more complete, you can store just the score of each position in the table - just 9 bits per position. If you only care if it's "close" but still want some scoring resolution, you store 3 or 4 bits per position. To choose a move, you do a 1 ply search and look up the resulting score in the table - in this way you get a more flexible table - you can locate all the best moves of equal value for instance - or even locate the worst move(s) on the board. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 20:14 -0500, Weston Markham wrote: > On a slightly (but not much) more serious note: > > The proposal that elicited (for better or for worse) Alain's > size-of-the-universe comment was not for a complete table of all > possible board states, but rather a table of winning moves. I expect > that most positions will have multiple winning moves, but only a > single one would need to be stored. The table does not need to store > anything for a position that cannot be reached by playing those > selected moves. > > I believe that this greatly reduces the size needed. I certainly > don't know how much smaller, although someone may be able to come up > with actual numbers for 5x5 and 7x7 games, and use an educated guess > on how these will scale up to 19x19. My offhand guess is that this > size is still _far_ greater than the meagre memory resources that were > suggested in the original post. For what it is worth, I expect that > it is also larger than the number of quantum states of one of Alain's > eyelashes. I would guess that it is smaller, however, than 10^100 > bits, which I believe is a common back-of-the-envelope number for the > total information in the visible universe. > > One also has the freedom to pick and choose which winning moves to > store. This can be used to maximize the overlap between the different > stored variations. If you also take advantage of patterns within the > table, you will certainly be able to compress it. (As has been > mentioned already.) At the far extreme, of course, you only need one > entry in the table for each of 282 possible moves, and a hash function > that simply ... er, figures out which move to play. Or, one can > strike a balance between these two extremes that gives an appropriate > tradeoff between computation time and memory. > > I would guess that kami no itte would still be impossible on 32GB, > 300Mhz. However, beating a professional dan player seems reasonable > to me. Of course, Alain will still have a large enough lookup table > that he will be able to beat it ... in the blink of an eye. > > Weston > > On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > > > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this > > > table ? > > > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible > > > universe. > > > > I think the computer science greats should have consulted you before > > writing their textbooks - I just looked at this crazy thing called a > > "turing machine" in one of my textbooks. > > > > A universal turing machine supposedly has an infinite tape attached to > > it. Maybe they are smart about computers, but they don't know > > anything > > about physics. I think all these textbooks need to be thrown out > > because they are obviously of no practical value. > > > > - Don > ___ > 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Le jeudi 25 janvier 2007 02:16, Lars Nilsson a écrit : > On 1/24/07, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > True i forgot about fantastic quantum-computer, which so far solved only > > very specific and tiny problems or quantum mechanics. > > In the spirit of this, lets bring the quantum computer built at U of > Illinois that computers its answer without actually running.. > > "By placing our photon in a quantum superposition of running and not > running the search algorithm, we obtained information about the answer > even when the photon did not run the search algorithm," said graduate > student Onur Hosten, lead author of the Nature paper. "We also showed > theoretically how to obtain the answer without ever running the > algorithm, by using a 'chained Zeno' effect." > > http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0222quantum.html > > That should take care of any objection like the universe would end > before the computer finished searching the entire game-tree. ;) > > Lars Nilsson Last paragraph begin by this sentence: "While the researchers’ optical quantum computer cannot be scaled up,..." and " Kwiat’s team succeeded in counterfactually searching a four-element database using Grover’s quantum search algorithm." Grover's algorithm is O(N^1/2) instead of O(N) wich might not be enought for go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm "Utilizing two coupled optical interferometers, nested within a third," I m afraid using 3 interferometer to search a 4 bit data base is slightly inefficient and costly :) If this could scale, it would need more than 500 interferometers to build a go-enabled machine. (or 500*501/2 ?) This is thermodynamical principe, you need an inifinetly big machine to do something infinitely small. This is already true for current computers, Moore law also describe the resources needed for building new more powerful computers (money, plants, complexity of the whole stuff ...) ,not doubling each 18 month , but regurlarly increasing, to such a point that financial or material resource can become the limiting factor soon. Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On a slightly (but not much) more serious note: The proposal that elicited (for better or for worse) Alain's size-of-the-universe comment was not for a complete table of all possible board states, but rather a table of winning moves. I expect that most positions will have multiple winning moves, but only a single one would need to be stored. The table does not need to store anything for a position that cannot be reached by playing those selected moves. I believe that this greatly reduces the size needed. I certainly don't know how much smaller, although someone may be able to come up with actual numbers for 5x5 and 7x7 games, and use an educated guess on how these will scale up to 19x19. My offhand guess is that this size is still _far_ greater than the meagre memory resources that were suggested in the original post. For what it is worth, I expect that it is also larger than the number of quantum states of one of Alain's eyelashes. I would guess that it is smaller, however, than 10^100 bits, which I believe is a common back-of-the-envelope number for the total information in the visible universe. One also has the freedom to pick and choose which winning moves to store. This can be used to maximize the overlap between the different stored variations. If you also take advantage of patterns within the table, you will certainly be able to compress it. (As has been mentioned already.) At the far extreme, of course, you only need one entry in the table for each of 282 possible moves, and a hash function that simply ... er, figures out which move to play. Or, one can strike a balance between these two extremes that gives an appropriate tradeoff between computation time and memory. I would guess that kami no itte would still be impossible on 32GB, 300Mhz. However, beating a professional dan player seems reasonable to me. Of course, Alain will still have a large enough lookup table that he will be able to beat it ... in the blink of an eye. Weston On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this > table ? > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible > universe. I think the computer science greats should have consulted you before writing their textbooks - I just looked at this crazy thing called a "turing machine" in one of my textbooks. A universal turing machine supposedly has an infinite tape attached to it. Maybe they are smart about computers, but they don't know anything about physics. I think all these textbooks need to be thrown out because they are obviously of no practical value. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 16:31 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: > > AFAIK this is not a philosophical list about god power, > > although (sadly) it is rapidly becoming one. If you want to leave God out of it, we can use a different metaphor - how about what is possible with a computer that has infinite memory and infinite speed? I have often day-dreamed about owning such a computer and what I could do with it. Such a computer could easily be used to build a very good program that would run on the computer you have at home today, just try all possible programs (up to some size and up to some total cpu cycles) and test each one. First test that your programs play legal moves in all positions, then test for strength (perhaps will a massive elimination tournament, the program that can survive a billion rounds is probably fairly strong.) - Don > s. > > > > > > > 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time > with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news > ___ > 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On 1/24/07, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: True i forgot about fantastic quantum-computer, which so far solved only very specific and tiny problems or quantum mechanics. In the spirit of this, lets bring the quantum computer built at U of Illinois that computers its answer without actually running.. "By placing our photon in a quantum superposition of running and not running the search algorithm, we obtained information about the answer even when the photon did not run the search algorithm," said graduate student Onur Hosten, lead author of the Nature paper. "We also showed theoretically how to obtain the answer without ever running the algorithm, by using a 'chained Zeno' effect." http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/06/0222quantum.html That should take care of any objection like the universe would end before the computer finished searching the entire game-tree. ;) Lars Nilsson ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 23:06, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. a écrit : > You can if you use some sort of compression scheme...involving > multiple values per quanta. I bet there's more than enough > room...in the universe...probably just in your eyelash. > True i forgot about fantastic quantum-computer, which so far solved only very specific and tiny problems or quantum mechanics. "Normal" quantum computer need more than 564 qubit to store the 10^170 pos, Maybe one can do better for go with a 361 qubit computer wich behave with go rules :) This need some serious amount of research ... Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 01:27 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 22:34, Don Dailey a écrit : > > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > > > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this > > > table ? > > > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible > > > universe. > > > > I think the computer science greats should have consulted you before > > writing their textbooks > Hmm didn't you notice the question mark ? > I thought this list was to exchange ideas and point of vue. My remark > is not so stupid that i have to endure your irony. It wasn't stupid, it was just too obvious and didn't have anything to do with our discussion which clearly WAS theoretical only. > AFAIK this is not a philosophical list about god power, so considering > physical limits is not out of topic. Imho go programming is difficult > and thus an interesting problem _because of_ these physical limitation > due to the world we live in. But Chris started the statement you responded to like this: "Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, ..." So his reply was based on the assumption that he could specify memory without limit. The physical limitations of computing is an interesting topic in it's own right, but that's a different discussion. When you are discussing the theoretical aspects of computer algorithms, such as turing machines and such, physics usually has no place in the discussion.Since we really don't know how big the universe is, or how long it will last, it's hard to use it anyway to prove or disprove anything.I assume that's why you referred to the "visible universe", instead of the universe. - Don > Regards. > Alain > > > > - I just looked at this crazy thing called a > > "turing machine" in one of my textbooks. > > > > A universal turing machine supposedly has an infinite tape attached to > > it. Maybe they are smart about computers, but they don't know > > anything > > about physics. I think all these textbooks need to be thrown out > > because they are obviously of no practical value. > > > > - Don > > > > > > ___ > > 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
> AFAIK this is not a philosophical list about god power, although (sadly) it is rapidly becoming one. s. 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
I KNOW you can. Not an exhaustive one, of course. On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:48 -0500, Chris Fant wrote: > Sooo... Anybody write or optimize any cool computer Go algorithms > lately? Hey, aren't you the guy that thinks you can put a look-up table for 19x19 go on a computer?You're really dumb to think that. :-) - Don ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 22:34, Don Dailey a écrit : > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this > > table ? > > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible > > universe. > > I think the computer science greats should have consulted you before > writing their textbooks Hmm didn't you notice the question mark ? I thought this list was to exchange ideas and point of vue. My remark is not so stupid that i have to endure your irony. AFAIK this is not a philosophical list about god power, so considering physical limits is not out of topic. Imho go programming is difficult and thus an interesting problem _because of_ these physical limitation due to the world we live in. Regards. Alain > - I just looked at this crazy thing called a > "turing machine" in one of my textbooks. > > A universal turing machine supposedly has an infinite tape attached to > it. Maybe they are smart about computers, but they don't know > anything > about physics. I think all these textbooks need to be thrown out > because they are obviously of no practical value. > > - Don > > > ___ > 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:48 -0500, Chris Fant wrote: > Sooo... Anybody write or optimize any cool computer Go algorithms lately? Actually, I'm working on a data compression scheme that will allow you to build a 19x19 full game look-up table and store it on an SD card. I have already figured out how to store the data so it fits but I want to keep it secret for now. It turns out that you have to build the complete database first before you can compress it so I have to use a universal turning machine since it has an infinite tape. - Don > On 1/24/07, Thomas Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turing Machines have an infinite tape -- I'm glad you set us straight on > > that. > > > > -Tom > > > > On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > > > > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this > > > > table ? > > > > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible > > > > universe. > > > > > > I think the computer science greats should have consulted you before > > > writing their textbooks - I just looked at this crazy thing called a > > > "turing machine" in one of my textbooks. > > > > > > A universal turing machine supposedly has an infinite tape attached to > > > it. Maybe they are smart about computers, but they don't know > > > anything > > > about physics. I think all these textbooks need to be thrown out > > > because they are obviously of no practical value. > > > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > 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/ > > > > > ___ > 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:48 -0500, Chris Fant wrote: > Sooo... Anybody write or optimize any cool computer Go algorithms > lately? Hey, aren't you the guy that thinks you can put a look-up table for 19x19 go on a computer?You're really dumb to think that. :-) - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Sooo... Anybody write or optimize any cool computer Go algorithms lately? On 1/24/07, Thomas Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Turing Machines have an infinite tape -- I'm glad you set us straight on that. -Tom On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this > > table ? > > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible > > universe. > > I think the computer science greats should have consulted you before > writing their textbooks - I just looked at this crazy thing called a > "turing machine" in one of my textbooks. > > A universal turing machine supposedly has an infinite tape attached to > it. Maybe they are smart about computers, but they don't know > anything > about physics. I think all these textbooks need to be thrown out > because they are obviously of no practical value. > > - Don > > > ___ > 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 15:38 -0800, Thomas Johnson wrote: > Turing Machines have an infinite tape -- I'm glad you set us straight > on that. > > -Tom No they don't. The universe is too small to contain an infinite tape. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Turing Machines have an infinite tape -- I'm glad you set us straight on that. -Tom On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this > table ? > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible > universe. I think the computer science greats should have consulted you before writing their textbooks - I just looked at this crazy thing called a "turing machine" in one of my textbooks. A universal turing machine supposedly has an infinite tape attached to it. Maybe they are smart about computers, but they don't know anything about physics. I think all these textbooks need to be thrown out because they are obviously of no practical value. - Don ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this > table ? > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible > universe. I think the computer science greats should have consulted you before writing their textbooks - I just looked at this crazy thing called a "turing machine" in one of my textbooks. A universal turing machine supposedly has an infinite tape attached to it. Maybe they are smart about computers, but they don't know anything about physics. I think all these textbooks need to be thrown out because they are obviously of no practical value. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
actually, one more trip to Gateway Electronics (the local circuit parts store) and my lookup table will be complete... suckers! On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 19:56, Stuart A. Yeates a écrit : > > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > > the trick. > > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this table ? > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible universe. I'm glad you set us straight on that. - Don > Cheers. > Alain > ___ > 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, terry mcintyre wrote: surprising amount of sophisticated processing nonetheless. It helps to have 10^15 processors working in parallel. it's more like 10^11 Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
You can if you use some sort of compression scheme...involving multiple values per quanta. I bet there's more than enough room...in the universe...probably just in your eyelash. - Original Message From: alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:11:23 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human? Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 19:56, Stuart A. Yeates a écrit : > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > the trick. With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this table ? I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible universe. Cheers. Alain ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 21:11 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote: > Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 19:56, Stuart A. Yeates a écrit : > > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > > the trick. > > With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this table ? > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible universe. I'm glad you set us straight on that. - Don > Cheers. > Alain > ___ > 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Nah, hash tables are amortized O(1). As long as you can address all that memory, 300MHz should be sufficient. On 1/24/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > the trick. > > cheers > stuart You're going to need more than 300MHz to do that lookup. ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
To do a complete lookup you would need more than 32 GB of memory, but I think that the question was more about making programs smarter more than it was about unlimited hardware. Infact, my question was what is the minimum hardware. That said, 300 Mhz should be plenty to do a lookup. There are what 10^170 legal positions. That means that if you were able to generate an index so that there was exactly one index into your lookup table for each legal position. You would need about a 564-bit number (or higher if it proved too difficult to make a unique continuous indexing function). You would be able to perform that lookup with a 1KHz computer in a reasonable amount of time (under a second) assuming the processor had a way to address all that memory (I think even 512-bit processors are still a bit over the horizen however...) On 1/24/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > the trick. > > cheers > stuart You're going to need more than 300MHz to do that lookup. ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do the trick. cheers stuart You're going to need more than 300MHz to do that lookup. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 18:56 +, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > > On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am fairly sure a perfect program would be impossible, even > among > the set of all possible programs that could find a move within > let's > say 60 seconds per move. > > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should > do the trick. Yes, but I was assuming a modern desktop system of today. Otherwise, I can write a program today that will play perfectly even without the memory. - Don > cheers > stuart > > > > > ___ > 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Oh no you didn't! On 1/24/07, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 19:56, Stuart A. Yeates a écrit: > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > the trick. With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this table ? I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible universe. Cheers. Alain ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
If god is building it, does it need to be in the universe? cheers stuart On 1/24/07, alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 19:56, Stuart A. Yeates a écrit: > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > the trick. With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this table ? I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible universe. Cheers. Alain ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
> With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this table ? > I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible universe. it'd also be difficult (time consuming-wise) to *produce* all valid boards. :) s. Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 19:56, Stuart A. Yeates a écrit : > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > the trick. With 10^170 legal position for 19x19 what would be the size of this table ? I m afraid we cannot build it with all the matter in visible universe. Cheers. Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On 1/24/07, Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In my original question I stated minimum resources. I agree with you that lots of memory could be highly useful: "... I would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a human." (from my original post) So it sounds to me like most people think that if we had a perfect program, computers would be able to win. So at this point hardware will only allow us to get away with writing less perfect code. On 1/24/07, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > I am fairly sure a perfect program would be impossible, even among > > the set of all possible programs that could find a move within let's > > say 60 seconds per move. > > > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a > complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do > the trick. > You are right. It's been a long thread and I'd forgotten that. sorry stuart ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
I feel that it takes a good combination of impressive hardware/software to play a really good game. Human brains are rather impressive in this regard, the hardware is more advanced than anything we have, but I'll bet the human brain is really far from being optimized for go. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:12 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote: > In my original question I stated minimum resources. I agree with you > that lots of memory could be highly useful: "... I would say a > computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz > processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a human." (from my > original post) > > So it sounds to me like most people think that if we had a perfect > program, computers would be able to win. So at this point hardware > will only allow us to get away with writing less perfect code. > > On 1/24/07, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am fairly sure a perfect program would be > impossible, even among > the set of all possible programs that could find a > move within let's > say 60 seconds per move. > > Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup > table (a complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by > board state) should do the trick. > > cheers > stuart > > > > > > ___ > 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
In my original question I stated minimum resources. I agree with you that lots of memory could be highly useful: "... I would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a human." (from my original post) So it sounds to me like most people think that if we had a perfect program, computers would be able to win. So at this point hardware will only allow us to get away with writing less perfect code. On 1/24/07, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am fairly sure a perfect program would be impossible, even among > the set of all possible programs that could find a move within let's > say 60 seconds per move. Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do the trick. cheers stuart ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
According to the presenter, the problems covered a range of difficulty from purely random boards to easy problems to hard problems. All of the problems shown to the subjects were not given in the paper. The same set of problems were shown to all subjects. It would be difficult, but not impossible to conduct a tournament with the participants inside an MRI machine. MRI machine time is worth something like $2000 per hour, so cost would add up quickly. I agree, it would be very interesting to see if brain volume usage goes up at the same time the pro uses lots of time. Cheers, David On 24, Jan 2007, at 10:52 AM, terry mcintyre wrote: Question: were the experts analyzing problems which were difficult at their level, or the same problems analyzed by non-experts? I suspect that expert players are able to obtain better results for the same problem with less effort than average players. To borrow from some now-ancient research done in cognitive psychology at CMU by Simon, it is probable that one develops cognitive "chunks" which permit higher-order processing at greater speeds. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the brain is used under tournament conditions by expert players, especially when they need to dig deep into their resources. - Original Message From: David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:02:18 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human? At the 3rd International Conference on Baduk there was a paper presented on fMRI images of the brains of expert and non-expert players analyzing Go problems. The conclusion of the research is that experts use far less of their brains than non-experts. The volume of the brain used by experts is quite small. Cheers, David On 24, Jan 2007, at 9:17 AM, terry mcintyre wrote: > does this approach what a Meijin does with a large fraction > of 10^15 neurons all working in tandem? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
I am thinking that God would use a much larger portion of the memory as code space. Hardcoding lots of the programming. Reason being, there would be no point in learning and go has so many special cases that it might be easier to do it this way (for a being that has lots of time to program that is). On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:17 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote: > > I could make a guess, but I certainly don't trust my intuition here. > > My guess is that God could program a core 2 duo system of today to > > beat a strong human. > > > There are limits to what a core 2 duo can compute in a reasonable > amount of time, no matter how sophisticated the program. So many > instructions per second, so many bits of change, so much information > gathered ... does this approach what a Meijin does with a large > fraction > of 10^15 neurons all working in tandem? I envision God using something perhaps like an extremely sophisticated neural net. It would be enhanced way beyond what we know - and there would be no training involved, it would just be hard coded with the right connection weights. However it's quite certain that this program would be advanced WAY beyond the software we are writing today. Of course I don't know if anything resembling a neural network would be used, but I use it as an example. It could have the ideal topology, the ideal weights, and a far more advanced design in general. I also believe, based on the design of the human brain, that it might have on the fly learning features. When humans study a position for a long time, we tend to get "waves of understanding."I know I have done that with chess, where I think I understand the basics of a position but as I consider it I keep getting updates that make me understand it better. Another thing we do when playing a game is that we don't start fresh at every move. Most of what we know about the 40th move we learned from the first 39 moves - we just keep updating information as it's added and removed. There are many possibilities that an omniscient begin would know how to add to a program. I am fairly sure a perfect program would be impossible, even among the set of all possible programs that could find a move within let's say 60 seconds per move. - Don ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On 1/24/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am fairly sure a perfect program would be impossible, even among the set of all possible programs that could find a move within let's say 60 seconds per move. Since no one has mentioned bounding memory, a complete lookup table (a complete table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by board state) should do the trick. cheers stuart ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Question: were the experts analyzing problems which were difficult at their level, or the same problems analyzed by non-experts? I suspect that expert players are able to obtain better results for the same problem with less effort than average players. To borrow from some now-ancient research done in cognitive psychology at CMU by Simon, it is probable that one develops cognitive "chunks" which permit higher-order processing at greater speeds. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the brain is used under tournament conditions by expert players, especially when they need to dig deep into their resources. - Original Message From: David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:02:18 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human? At the 3rd International Conference on Baduk there was a paper presented on fMRI images of the brains of expert and non-expert players analyzing Go problems. The conclusion of the research is that experts use far less of their brains than non-experts. The volume of the brain used by experts is quite small. Cheers, David On 24, Jan 2007, at 9:17 AM, terry mcintyre wrote: > does this approach what a Meijin does with a large fraction > of 10^15 neurons all working in tandem? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
So if we assume 10 Hz in the brain and 4GHz on silicon, we need to do 25000 neuron-equivalent operations per cycle on silicon. On 1/24/07, terry mcintyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Moravec estimates that the computer which beat a grandmaster was equivalent to 1/30 of the processing capacity of a human brain. So, let's call it 10^13 neurons -- a fraction of the brain, but still a very large amount of processing capability. - Original Message From: David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At the 3rd International Conference on Baduk there was a paper presented on fMRI images of the brains of expert and non-expert players analyzing Go problems. The conclusion of the research is that experts use far less of their brains than non-experts. The volume of the brain used by experts is quite small. On 24, Jan 2007, at 9:17 AM, terry mcintyre wrote: > does this approach what a Meijin does with a large fraction > of 10^15 neurons all working in tandem? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:17 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote: > > I could make a guess, but I certainly don't trust my intuition here. > > My guess is that God could program a core 2 duo system of today to > > beat a strong human. > > > There are limits to what a core 2 duo can compute in a reasonable > amount of time, no matter how sophisticated the program. So many > instructions per second, so many bits of change, so much information > gathered ... does this approach what a Meijin does with a large > fraction > of 10^15 neurons all working in tandem? I envision God using something perhaps like an extremely sophisticated neural net. It would be enhanced way beyond what we know - and there would be no training involved, it would just be hard coded with the right connection weights. However it's quite certain that this program would be advanced WAY beyond the software we are writing today. Of course I don't know if anything resembling a neural network would be used, but I use it as an example. It could have the ideal topology, the ideal weights, and a far more advanced design in general. I also believe, based on the design of the human brain, that it might have on the fly learning features. When humans study a position for a long time, we tend to get "waves of understanding."I know I have done that with chess, where I think I understand the basics of a position but as I consider it I keep getting updates that make me understand it better. Another thing we do when playing a game is that we don't start fresh at every move. Most of what we know about the 40th move we learned from the first 39 moves - we just keep updating information as it's added and removed. There are many possibilities that an omniscient begin would know how to add to a program. I am fairly sure a perfect program would be impossible, even among the set of all possible programs that could find a move within let's say 60 seconds per move. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Moravec estimates that the computer which beat a grandmaster was equivalent to 1/30 of the processing capacity of a human brain. So, let's call it 10^13 neurons -- a fraction of the brain, but still a very large amount of processing capability. - Original Message From: David Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> At the 3rd International Conference on Baduk there was a paper presented on fMRI images of the brains of expert and non-expert players analyzing Go problems. The conclusion of the research is that experts use far less of their brains than non-experts. The volume of the brain used by experts is quite small. On 24, Jan 2007, at 9:17 AM, terry mcintyre wrote: > does this approach what a Meijin does with a large fraction > of 10^15 neurons all working in tandem? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
At the 3rd International Conference on Baduk there was a paper presented on fMRI images of the brains of expert and non-expert players analyzing Go problems. The conclusion of the research is that experts use far less of their brains than non-experts. The volume of the brain used by experts is quite small. Cheers, David On 24, Jan 2007, at 9:17 AM, terry mcintyre wrote: does this approach what a Meijin does with a large fraction of 10^15 neurons all working in tandem? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 16:53 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > It's obvious that you can't program a 10 instruction per second > computer to beat a human - so it's also clear that there would > be some minimum level of hardware required. Let's not forget VLIW ( Very Long Instruction Word ) computers, or various parallel architectures such as the Connection Machine, which operated on 64K bits at once. The instruction cycle time of a human brain is somewhere around ten per second - but we do a surprising amount of sophisticated processing nonetheless. It helps to have 10^15 processors working in parallel. > I could make a guess, but I certainly don't trust my intuition here. > My guess is that God could program a core 2 duo system of today to > beat a strong human. There are limits to what a core 2 duo can compute in a reasonable amount of time, no matter how sophisticated the program. So many instructions per second, so many bits of change, so much information gathered ... does this approach what a Meijin does with a large fraction of 10^15 neurons all working in tandem? Now that I think on it, with perfect knowledge, God could write a compact opening book to handle the fuseki, and an engine which would deal with the remainder of the game quite well. Trading data storage for processing power could stretch the abilities of the core duo quite a bit. Would it be enough? Of course, there's the approach used by some www commerce sites - the "ask an authority" subroutine. When the computer gets really stuck, it simply executes Prayer(board, "What's the best move, God?") followed by Sacrifice(12*unblemished_lamb) or Rosary(50). Hans Moravec estimated that processing power equivalent to a human brain will be available around 2020 - probably at supercomputer prices. Ten or twenty years after that, it will be available to the average hobbyist. Building a Go program to take advantage of hundreds of thousands of processors and terabytes of RAM will be an interesting challenge. God himself would surely be able, but are we? We're striving for the computer equivalent of Kami no itte. TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 16:53 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > It's obvious that you can't program a 10 instruction per second computer > to beat a human - so it's also clear that there would be some minimum > level of hardware required. Obvious? You have proof of that? ;-) Don't underestimate God, there might exist some really really really clever mathematical way to select enough good moves with 1000 instructions on 19x19 board to beat a pro player. > > I could make a guess, but I certainly don't trust my intuition here. > My guess is that God could program a core 2 duo system of today to > beat a strong human. That is probably safe bet. -- Aloril <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
At the Cotsen Open 1.5 years ago SlugGo beat an 8k, and lost on time to his 8k brother, but the board position was a win by more than 100 points for SlugGo. But I agree that 10k is about right; SlugGo also lost to a few 12k players. I also agree that picking up 4 stones seems within reach, even though I have not quite pulled that off ... yet. To beat any pro player is going to take a breakthrough and probably a new method. It is just a little early to tell if MC is that method, but it seems to scale well, so it may be. If the required new method is not MC, then it is impossible to know when that breakthrough will happen, because by its nature, it is not going to simply evolve out of what we are doing now, but requires some new insight. Cheers, David On 23, Jan 2007, at 10:17 PM, Ray Tayek wrote: the programs seem to be about 10-kyu (based on my observations of slugo and smart go at the cotsen open and manyfaces on my pc). 32gb/ 300 mhz is probably about 3gb/3ghz. so they can beat some 11-kyu humans. my suspicion is that the programs could play a few (4?) stones stronger with better heuristics and less brute force (except in the end game). ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
At 01:51 PM 1/23/2007, you wrote: Let me clear one thing up... I mean, a professional go player. ... this would be equivalent to somewhere between 7-10 dan amateur. at least decades. probably much longer. (at least without quantum stuff). thanks --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
At 01:22 PM 1/23/2007, you wrote: ... It plays the best game you could ever program it to play. How fast would the computer have to be to beat a human? ... but I would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a human. the programs seem to be about 10-kyu (based on my observations of slugo and smart go at the cotsen open and manyfaces on my pc). 32gb/300 mhz is probably about 3gb/3ghz. so they can beat some 11-kyu humans. my suspicion is that the programs could play a few (4?) stones stronger with better heuristics and less brute force (except in the end game). thanks --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
I strongly believe it's not hardware but software (ie. when we will develop a strong enough algorithm) issue. - gg Nick Apperson: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Let me clear one thing up... I mean, a professional go player. A rough >approximation of what the human brain is capable of when it is optimized for >go compared with a computer that has its software optimized (not limited by >programming ability and programmer time) for go. > >On 1/23/07, Joshua Shriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> My 500mhz computer beats me fairly easy ;) with Gnugo so depends on >> the person you're comparing. >> >> -Josh >> >> On 1/23/07, Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > This is something I have been wrestling with. It is kind of a >> theoretical >> > question. Assuming a program that utilizes all avaliable resources >> > perfectly. It plays the best game you could ever program it to >> play. How >> > fast would the computer have to be to beat a human? I could see people >> > argue that if the program had enough knowledge it could be a pretty slow >> > computer (less than 100 Mhz), I could also see someone state the reality >> > that our brains (when you sum up the computational power of an entire >> > thinking brain) have way more processing power than a cluster of high >> > performance workstations and so technology isn't able to provide >> computer >> > hardware that would be fast enough. I think I vastly underestimate the >> > human brain, but I would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of >> RAM >> > (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to >> beat a >> > human. Thoughts? >> > >> > ___ >> > 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/ >> > inline file >___ >computer-go mailing list >computer-go@computer-go.org >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 15:22 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote: > This is something I have been wrestling with. It is kind of a > theoretical question. Assuming a program that utilizes all avaliable > resources perfectly. It plays the best game you could ever program it > to play. How fast would the computer have to be to beat a human? I > could see people argue that if the program had enough knowledge it > could be a pretty slow computer (less than 100 Mhz), I could also see > someone state the reality that our brains (when you sum up the > computational power of an entire thinking brain) have way more > processing power than a cluster of high performance workstations and > so technology isn't able to provide computer hardware that would be > fast enough. I think I vastly underestimate the human brain, but I > would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM (so a lot) > and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a > human. Thoughts? Excellent question. So you really mean, if God would program a computer to be as strong as possible would it beat humans at human-like time-controls? It's obvious that you can't program a 10 instruction per second computer to beat a human - so it's also clear that there would be some minimum level of hardware required. I could make a guess, but I certainly don't trust my intuition here. My guess is that God could program a core 2 duo system of today to beat a strong human. - Don > 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
Let me clear one thing up... I mean, a professional go player. A rough approximation of what the human brain is capable of when it is optimized for go compared with a computer that has its software optimized (not limited by programming ability and programmer time) for go. On 1/23/07, Joshua Shriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My 500mhz computer beats me fairly easy ;) with Gnugo so depends on the person you're comparing. -Josh On 1/23/07, Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is something I have been wrestling with. It is kind of a theoretical > question. Assuming a program that utilizes all avaliable resources > perfectly. It plays the best game you could ever program it to play. How > fast would the computer have to be to beat a human? I could see people > argue that if the program had enough knowledge it could be a pretty slow > computer (less than 100 Mhz), I could also see someone state the reality > that our brains (when you sum up the computational power of an entire > thinking brain) have way more processing power than a cluster of high > performance workstations and so technology isn't able to provide computer > hardware that would be fast enough. I think I vastly underestimate the > human brain, but I would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM > (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a > human. Thoughts? > > ___ > 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
My 500mhz computer beats me fairly easy ;) with Gnugo so depends on the person you're comparing. -Josh On 1/23/07, Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is something I have been wrestling with. It is kind of a theoretical question. Assuming a program that utilizes all avaliable resources perfectly. It plays the best game you could ever program it to play. How fast would the computer have to be to beat a human? I could see people argue that if the program had enough knowledge it could be a pretty slow computer (less than 100 Mhz), I could also see someone state the reality that our brains (when you sum up the computational power of an entire thinking brain) have way more processing power than a cluster of high performance workstations and so technology isn't able to provide computer hardware that would be fast enough. I think I vastly underestimate the human brain, but I would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a human. Thoughts? ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
The answer is "yes." Many computer programs (including my own) can beat me easily on today's hardware and I am, indeed, a human. Glad I could clear that up for you. ;-) - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 4:22 PM Subject: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human? This is something I have been wrestling with. It is kind of a theoretical question. Assuming a program that utilizes all avaliable resources perfectly. It plays the best game you could ever program it to play. How fast would the computer have to be to beat a human? I could see people argue that if the program had enough knowledge it could be a pretty slow computer (less than 100 Mhz), I could also see someone state the reality that our brains (when you sum up the computational power of an entire thinking brain) have way more processing power than a cluster of high performance workstations and so technology isn't able to provide computer hardware that would be fast enough. I think I vastly underestimate the human brain, but I would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a human. Thoughts? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?
This is something I have been wrestling with. It is kind of a theoretical question. Assuming a program that utilizes all avaliable resources perfectly. It plays the best game you could ever program it to play. How fast would the computer have to be to beat a human? I could see people argue that if the program had enough knowledge it could be a pretty slow computer (less than 100 Mhz), I could also see someone state the reality that our brains (when you sum up the computational power of an entire thinking brain) have way more processing power than a cluster of high performance workstations and so technology isn't able to provide computer hardware that would be fast enough. I think I vastly underestimate the human brain, but I would say a computer with perfect software, 32 GB of RAM (so a lot) and a 300 Mhz processor (slow processor) would be able to beat a human. Thoughts? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
