>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 suspect.
-- Terry McIntyre
----- Original Message ----
From: Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org>
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:16:35 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Can Go be solved???... PLEASE help!
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 it will. It's just a question of how long
until it occurs.
On 1/12/07, Mehdi Ahmadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 overall objectives below.
>
> I have many works from different people on different aspects of Computer Go
> which would make for great inclusion at different parts - but overall I am
> still gravely struggling. In reviewing some of these my greatest difficulty
> is in understanding exactly how say Monte-Carlo-UCT or even Alpha-Beta
> testing (pruning, etc) occur so as to be able to give a simplified depiction
> (illustrated or otherwise) of the process. Can this be done without having
> to go through the source code of say something like GNU Go?
>
> Also another difficulty I've had is in trying to get further information on
> the commonly referred top ranking packages, Handtalk, Go++, Many Faces of
> Go, etc due to their commercial nature? (the only thing I've been able to
> find which is a bit outdated:
> http://www.inventivity.com/OpenGo/Papers/EditedGoPapers.html).
>
> Lastly can any general categorisation - distinction be made of current
> approach/ implementations in trying to 'solve' Go. in comparison to say
> traditional disciplines used in trying to solve games (complex or otherwise)
> via computer? To put simply I am trying to have some core root comparison in
> current methodologies (if there is any?).
>
> If anyone has any suggestions/ guidance on anything mentioned - I would be
> eternally indebted.
>
> ==================================
> 5.1 OBJECTIVES
> . To concisely review all game playing aspects of Go (rules, openings,
> middle game, etc) and its relevance to the complication of meaningful
> measurements of interest.
> . To evaluate, gain and develop further understanding of specific game
> aspects including (eg):
> - Representation:
> . Eyes
> . life-and-death
> . territory estimates and weakness
> - Move Evaluation:
> . Territorial and strategic affluence.
> . Address specific and current implementation methodologies including:
> - Search algorithms (Alpha-Beta - local/global, Monte-Carlo -UCT)
> - Move Generation
> - Positional Evaluation (Patterns, Neural Networks)
> . To detail inadequacies in research and reasons for shortfalls where
> applicable.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
