On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 12:09 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: > an i think that if you were to perform these > experiments one at a time (i.e. give yourself > 10x more time, and see if you can beat an 6kyu, > then 100x more time and see if you can beat a 4kyu, > etc.), many of which are reasonable (we all could > donate some cpu time to the task), we could see > if the "linear scaling" argument actually holds > water. :) > > which i'm not saying that it wouldn't. i'm just > saying that it's a testable hypothesis (minus your > equivocation about ram usage), and we ought to > get cracking to see if it's true.
I think the scaling argument does hold water. They always said it wouldn't in chess but they were always wrong. Of course we did observe a gradual tapering off. But Go is more complex, the tapering behavior is almost certainly much farther away and I believe the tapering will be barely noticeable going from 10 seconds to 1 week. I do believe there is some intransitivy at work here. Even in Chess the computer/computer ratings have improved faster than the human/computer ratings but not by hundreds of points, just a few. If you look at the computer rating lists the best computers are something around 2900, but against humans I do not think they are that strong, although they may not be that far away either. I even wonder if the intransitivity is all it's cracked up to be. I think more than anything they are just rated to high and there has been some drift and they could correct it by deducting 100 rating points or so from the computers. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
