> > If you guys are correct thinking the nature of the game is such that > > humans cannot improve with time, then the computers will pull > > ahead more and more at longer time controls.
let's adjust this to avoid the strawman and say that the counter-argument is that humans cannot improve much with significantly more time. what is the proposed idea? how many doublings should equal at least one stone? i think that when we played around with your code we found that doubling worked up until about 8192/16384 -- when it seemed like it was starting to lose based on time fairly frequently -- perhaps it could be doubled quite a few more times if we had fast enough machines. i can't remember what the full ELO spread was, but from, say, 1024 to 8192 there were at least several 100-point jumps, right? > What do you think will happen? Do you believe that computers are > actually more effective at utilizing extra time in 19x19 go? I > think you are wrong. i think that computers will tap out and no longer be able to gain ELO after some (unknown) amount of doubling of thinking time. :) > Wouldn't that be crazy if it turned out that humans improve more in > chess with time but are incapable of improving at go and that > computers are actually superior in this regard for GO? only if it held true for important advances in ELO (i.e. proving that this is the case up until exactly the strength of existing non-scalable programs wouldn't be as exciting as proving that you could double a piece of code to be stronger than existing programs). because, frankly, a few doublings are quite easy to lay your hands on, if it's really a scalable (or in particular, parallelizable) program. s. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
