Hello & thank in advance for any interests/ responses.
I'm unfortunately (or not) doing a dissertation as part of my final year
project (undergraduate) on the game of Go. The exact title is: "Can the game
of go be solved? Analysis of computational methodologies for go." And I have
included my over
Seems like a silly title. Any game of perfect information that has a
clear rule set can be solved. Plus, some would argue that any Go
already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
while it runs). A better question is, "Can Computer Go Surpass Human
Go?" But again, clearly
>From http://senseis.xmp.net/?7x7BestPlay it looks like 7x7 Go
may already have been solved. 5x5 was solved in 2002, according
to http://erikvanderwerf.tengen.nl/5x5/5x5solved.html
AFAIK, 9x9 Go has not been solved yet. 19x19 Go will surely exceed the
capabilities of computers in my lifetime, I s
I used the Python version and it worked almost perfectly on the first
try -- thanks! Here's the command I used:
python /Applications/gnugo-3.6/interface/gtp_examples/twogtp.py --
black '' --white '/usr/local/bin/gnugo --
mode gtp --quiet --level 1 --never-resign --chinese-rules --capture-
a
A much more up-to-date bibliography is maintained by Markus Enzenberger:
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~emarkus/compgo_biblio/
Terry McIntyre
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for
There are a number of definitions of solved, ranging from "a program
exists that can beat any human" to "we can quickly determine, for any
position, the best move and the result under optimal play". In the
latter strong sense, I believe Go has only been solved up to 5x5,
maybe 6x6.
There
Thank your for your response, Chris.
I think as Allis et al (1991, 1994) points out there is a difference in
'crackable' and 'solvable' where the former tend to be search-based
complexities and the later decision-based complexity. Irrespective of the
opponent via the cracking approach the best the
Now there's an additional curiosity. The log of moves printed out by
the GNU Go twogtp.py script seems to sometimes insert gratuitous
passes or allow one player to play more than once in a row:
Black plays c9
White plays B9
Black plays d7
White plays D6
Black plays h6
White plays D4
White pas
Seems like a silly title. Any game of perfect information that has a
clear rule set can be solved. Plus, some would argue that any Go
already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
while it runs). A better question is, "Can Computer Go Surpass Human
Go?" But again, clearly i
On 12-jan-07, at 14:16, Chris Fant wrote:
Plus, some would argue that any Go
already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
while it runs).
To 'solve' a game in the strict sense you need to know the best
answer to every move. And you need to be able to prove that it's th
You neglected to consider the power of future quantum computers.
On 1/12/07, Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12-jan-07, at 14:16, Chris Fant wrote:
Plus, some would argue that any Go
already is solved (write simple algorithm and wait 1 billion years
while it runs).
To 'solve' a gam
And Mark Boon also neglected the future use of wormholes, replicators
and who knows what? :)
Sorry, but how do you what future quantum computers can churn so much
data?
10^400 is a rediculously large number. Even if you multiply the volume
of the visible universe expressed in in cubic Planck
yeah, there are upper limits placed on computation rate by thermodynamics.
19x19 is way beyond those as Dave pointed out. But, even if you believe
that technology will improve and the most revolutionary change yet will come
to understanding of physics and that change will give us signifigantly mo
Hi,
On 1/12/07, Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah, there are upper limits placed on computation rate by thermodynamics.
19x19 is way beyond those as Dave pointed out. But, even if you believe
that technology will improve and the most revolutionary change yet will come
to understandi
I appreciate your response. Mathematical solutions are certainly a good
possibility to reduce the amount of processing power needed. However, a
person would not be able to solve 19x19 because a person lacks the necessary
computational resources to form a solution in any reasonable amount of
time
Peter Drake wrote:
> There are a number of definitions of solved, ranging from "a program
> exists that can beat any human" to "we can quickly determine, for any
> position, the best move and the result under optimal play". In the
> latter strong sense, I believe Go has only been solved up to 5x5,
Besides the technical question if it is possible, there is the
ethical/philosophical one if it should be done. I think solving a game is
killing a game. It can be played further, because the solution is too
complex to comprehend, but it looses its charm/mysterium. Nobody would also
want to play
White in 42 moves ;)
Have a good weekend everyone.
-Josh
that, a perfectly fair komi could be calculated. From what I know, even
chess is still unsolved conserning this matter - noone knows if white (or
even black) can force a win.
___
computer-go m
I agree, anyone play othello/Reversi?
From my understanding it has been solved. Yet when I try to find info
on reversi computer tournaments they all seemed to die out several
years ago.
-Josh
On 1/12/07, Chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Besides the technical question if it is possible, the
On Friday, Jan 12, 2007, at 16:04 US/Central, Nick Apperson wrote:
Mathematical solutions are certainly a good possibility to reduce the
amount of processing power needed. However, a person would not be
able to solve 19x19 because a person lacks the necessary computational
resources to form
The solution is a rule. It is only a matter of how easy that rule is to
apply. We have a rule that works now: Do a full min-max search on every
move and play the move that results in the highest expected return given
that your opponent is aiming for the lowest... Game theory gives us that
rule
Another interesting question would be the score (eg. territorry) that
black/white can reach assuming "perfect" play on both sides. If we knew
that, a perfectly fair komi could be calculated. From what I know, even
chess is still unsolved conserning this matter - noone knows if white (or
even blac
On Friday, Jan 12, 2007, at 16:39 US/Central, Nick Apperson wrote:
The solution is a rule. It is only a matter of how easy that rule is
to apply. We have a rule that works now: Do a full min-max search on
every move and play the move that results in the highest expected
return given that yo
indeed, and I think most of us wouldn't be here if we didn't think a better
rule could be designed. Your point is well taken. Sorry if I didn't
acknowledge it properly.
- Nick
On 1/12/07, Ray Easton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday, Jan 12, 2007, at 16:39 US/Central, Nick Apperson wrote
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:
> Sorry, but how do you what future quantum computers can churn so much
> data?
>
Chris Fant isn't a modern-day human but an android sent back
through a wormhole from future times (Future ^2, Left **7, Right **.13,
to the root of SQRT(-1) in hex co
>>You can always make a bigger board. ...
> ...
> raw computing power isn't the only way. Mathematical solutions might
> easily reduce the search space just enough to allow a full search of
> what's left of it.
I fully agree, assuming your definition of "mathematical" allows
multiple techniques,
I don't believe many of you understand Chris's point. He is saying
that "in principal" the game is solvable. Chris isn't stupid - he
doesn't think it's simple and I knew as soon as he posted it that
everyone would jump on this with their analysis about the size of
the universe and such - the ol
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 15:43 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
> yeah, there are upper limits placed on computation rate by
> thermodynamics. 19x19 is way beyond those as Dave pointed out. But,
> even if you believe that technology will improve and the most
> revolutionary change yet will come to unders
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 21:51 +, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 1/12/07, Nick Apperson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > yeah, there are upper limits placed on computation rate by thermodynamics.
> > 19x19 is way beyond those as Dave pointed out. But, even if you believe
> > that technology w
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 16:39 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
> The solution is a rule. It is only a matter of how easy that rule is
> to apply. We have a rule that works now: Do a full min-max search on
> every move and play the move that results in the highest expected
> return given that your oppone
Someone needs to get their bot on CGOS and end Mogo's reign of terror.
A version of MoGo has achieved a CGOS rating of well over 2300!
- Don
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/compute
On Sat, 2007-01-13 at 01:42 +, Aidan Karley wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:
> > Sorry, but how do you what future quantum computers can churn so much
> > data?
> >
>Chris Fant isn't a modern-day human but an android sent back
> through a wormhole from future times (Fu
It looks like most of these games are being won in the opening. Doesn't
mogo have a big UCT opening book? Is it learning from each game it plays as
well?
David
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Friday, January 12,
33 matches
Mail list logo
