2009/10/29 Olivier Teytaud <olivier.teyt...@lri.fr> > > >> >> Just curious, who actually claimed that and what was it based on? >> >> > I don't know who claimed it first, and who agreed for it, > but I agree with it :-) >
But you always seek the most hardware when you play against a human it seems. I think you realize it does help a lot to do this, otherwise your team would not be so foolish as to procure the big iron when it comes time to compete. You also are painfully aware that there are problems to be solved that will not easily succumb to just a few more doublings in power. That is exactly as it should be and is not a barrier. I don't think you know the difference between a wall and a point that is just far away. > > More precisely, I think that increasing time and computational power > makes computers stronger, but not for some particular things like > long-term life-and-death in corners, or semeai situations. This makes a > big limitation on what is possible with MCTS algorithms, in particular > against humans. We made a lot > of efforts for online learning of Monte-Carlo simulations, in order to > improve > this, but there's no significant improvement around that. > You are thinking with a very limited perspective here. Think in terms of 2 or 3 decades of Moores Law. We had those same "barriers" in chess that people said were impossible because we usually don't think in terms of getting 10,000 X more computing power, we are stuck in the present and just realize that getting 10X more is not nearly enough to solve some problem as you are observing here. And if 2 decades are not enough wait 2 more. I hope no one responds about Moores Law not holding any longer. That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is that it takes a huge amount of extra CPU power to make a dent in big problems, just like it was in chess. No big surprise here. If Moores law doesn't hold then we are in trouble and it will take about twice as long. Why twice? I don't really know but by analogy the progress in chess software has been on par or slightly greater than the advances in hardware. (Most people don't realize this and think chess is 95% about hardware, but that is a complete misconception. In very rough terms there has been about the same increase in ELO due to software as to hardware over the last several years.) The combination of software and hardware is the potent combination if Moore's law will hold out for us. Just because it may not happen within the next 2 or 3 years doesn't mean it's a wall or that anything odd is going on here. - Don > > Best regards, > Olivier > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
