I think that there's an apples/oranges thing going on here.
> My hunch, however, is that they won't play a
> significant role in creating a machine that can top the best human
> players in the 19-by-19 game.
i agree with this statement.
> And MC programs are more scalable that traditional programs. That
> seems like some evidence that it can or will. Especially given that
> the current techniques are still so young.
i do not agree with this statement.
"top the best human players in a 19x19 game" is quite a bit different than
"at the level of the strongest traditional programs". "at the level of", or
"near the level of", or "slightly better than" just means (perhaps) that the
wheel has been re-invented. it could mean more than that, but there surely
doesn't seem to be much evidence for that at this point.
"scalable" doesn't mean linear, and it also doesn't give an asymptotic growth
function or a constant. if anyone anywhere could give a good estimate for how
many cpus it would take, with any particular algorithm, to beat a professional
player, and if the number were feasible, there's no reason not to start building
such a machine.
s.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
