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 Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:12 -0600, Nick Apperson 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 to beat a human." (from my > original post) > > So it sounds to me like most people think that if we had a perfect > program, computers would be able to win. So at this point hardware > will only allow us to get away with writing less perfect code. > > On 1/24/07, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 table of correct moves, perfect-hashed by > board state) should do the trick. > > cheers > stuart > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
