Nick Wedd wrote:
Some results of Computer Go (and other computer games) events have
long been available on the old ICGA web site at
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/ . There is now a new ICGA web site at
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/ with fuller information on
these events, including
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 ?
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.
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,
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.
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
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
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)
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 computer-go@computer-go.org
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
At 02:52 PM 1/23/2007, you wrote:
... I'm interested in doing some experiments in developing a
computer go algorithm. ... I'll probably be writing in C++ on Linux
or C# on Windows, depending on the software available for each.
take a look at http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/go/ it was in java, he
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
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
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
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
Ray Tayek wrote:
... I can say that I don't feel overwhelmed when playing chess. ...
Now with Go as a beginner still, on the other hand, I almost always
felt and still feel quite overwhelmed ...
yes, i usually feel this way in tournament games. and again more time
will help (for some
41 matches
Mail list logo
