ed computation, but that
would just shrink the 32 years by maybe a decade.
How do others feel about this?
I guess I should also go on record as believing that if it really does
take 32 years, we *will* have general-purpose AI before then.
Bob Hearn
is PSPACE-complete.
But fascinating as these complexity issues are (I've spent a fair
amount of time trying to prove that go with superko is EXPSPACE-
complete), I don't think they are really relevant to computer go.
Bob Hearn
References:
J. M. Robson. The complexity of Go. In Proceed
Well you can blame me for linking to the AGA story on Slashdot, but at
least I didn't repeat the misquote, and I also asked Chris to fix it
on the AGA site. I figured it would probably make Slashdot quickly
anyway, so the story might as well be written by someone with at least
a bit of a cl
The MoGo programmer who answered questions after the match (Olivier
Teytaud) did state that MoGo no longer used UCT. He gave a one-line
statement of the reason they switched, which I did not follow.
Bob
On Aug 12, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Jim O'Flaherty wrote:
All,
Can anyone detail the design
In principle MoGo ought to be about a stone (or slightly more) weaker
with 1/5 the processing power, which is consistent with 2-3d against
Kim and 1-2d against the 6d.
I watched both games, and MoGo did seem stronger to me against Kim...
but then, I knew in advance the processing power in e
On Aug 27, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 13:20 -0700, Bob Hearn wrote:
In principle MoGo ought to be about a stone (or slightly more) weaker
with 1/5 the processing power, which is consistent with 2-3d against
Kim and 1-2d against the 6d.
I thought a doubling was
oming a stronger player), one
should not expect complete generality prematurely.
But conceivably, it is not necessary to completely analyze semeai
statically, merely to produce some better heuristics so that the
playouts do a better job with semea
m, see the symposium information
page. There's no way to link directly to the page; to get there, go to http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/?mkey=%7B8AA65090%2D37AD%2D4C29%2D9CF1%2D9BCD6EFA2210%7D
, and enter "Hearn" into the search box.
Thank you,
Bob Hearn
On Nov 17, 2008, at 11:34 PM, Ingo Althöfer wrote:
Dear Bob Hearn,
it is not what you have been looking for, but nevertheless
I want to ask you if the title of your talk
"Games Computers Can't Play" is still up-to-date.
I would accept something like
"Games Computers
The episode was actually called "Strange Things Happen at the One Two
Point" (which I noticed on Tivo before watching it -- I had to do a
double take). Perhaps the first time a go proverb has been the title
of a TV show?
On Nov 25, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Michael Williams wrote:
You should be
On Nov 26, 2008, at 9:44 AM, Eric Dunham wrote:
I just hope that these new players aren't thinking that Go is going
to come up with the next killer AI and actually take some interest
in the game. :)
And let's hope they can do better than the terminator, and not play
every stone in contac
ty of Toronto
More information on the AAAS meeting is available at http://www.aaas.org/meetings/
.
Bob Hearn
-
Robert A. Hearn
Neukom Institute for Computational Science, Dartmouth College
rob
s in the Monte Carlo algorithms could
gain some small number of stones in strength for fixed computation,
but that would just shrink the 32 years by maybe a decade.
Thanks,
Bob Hearn
-
Robert A. Hearn
Neukom Institute for Computational Scienc
will add some
popular interest.
Bob Hearn
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Feb 16, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Andy wrote:
See attached a copy of the .sgf. It was played private on KGS so you
can't get it there directly. One of the admins cloned it and I saved
it off locally.
I changed the result to be B+4.5 instead of W+2.5.
Here is another copy of the game record, wit
15 matches
Mail list logo
