On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Don Dailey <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't require anything to be that precise, but I want statements to have > a bit of substance. Phrases such as, "he is good" depends on a frame of > reference. > The best players in the world are not a good frame of reference either, > they certainly do not represent humanity in general. And how good humans > play is based on their culture and education too. > So when we compare programs to humans, we usually mean some very well > trained human, someone in the 95th percentile or something like that, not > really a representative of human-kind. So which measuring stick do you > consider to be "accurate" for comparing how computers (not humans) play > completely different games? > If you compare the average player, we have probably already succeeded - the > best computer go programs are much better than the average go player. > So now all we have to do is make progress and move up the ranks, just like > humans have to do - and stop calling it hard. That is a given and is why > we do it. I do computer chess for the same reason, it is very hard.
I feel you are beating around the bush. Go is harder to program to match a human expert than chess. Yes, no or you don't want to answer. We can probably define 'hard' in terms of time spent by humans trying, but I hope we don't need to get that petty. I agree with Michael that the static nature of the go-board probably helps humans to make things easier. But it's at least interesting that that feature has not been equally exploited successfully by computers or their programmers. Mark _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
