Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Computers still can’t win Go

arroba Email

Invented over 2500 years ago in China, Go is a pastime beloved by emperors and generals, intellectuals and child prodigies. Like chess, it’s a deterministic perfect information game — a game where no information is hidden from either player, and there are no built-in elements of chance, such as dice.1 And like chess, it’s a two-person war game. Play begins with an empty board, where players alternate the placement of black and white stones, attempting to surround territory while avoiding capture by the enemy. That may seem simpler than chess, but it’s not. When Deep Blue was busy beating Kasparov, the best Go programs couldn’t even challenge a decent amateur. And despite huge computing advances in the years since — Kasparov would probably lose to your home computer — the automation of expert-level Go remains one of AI’s greatest unsolved riddles.

Rémi Coulum is part of a small community of computer scientists hoping to solve this riddle. Every March, the world’s most dedicated Go programmers gather at the University of Electro-Communications to compete in the UEC Cup, a computer Go tournament that, uniquely, rewards two finalists with matches against a “Go sage,” the equivalent of a chess grandmaster. Organizers dub these machine-versus-man matches the Densei-sen, or “Electric Sage Battle.” More.

Even if they could, the programmer should claim the prize.

I think its all wrong here in the presumptions. All these things are merely things of the memory. Chess is not a intellectual game. its just a memory game. in fact kids have done well at it i remember. I never heard of this other game but it simply would be the compiter is not memorizing as it needs to. These are games. they are not functions of thinking. or rather no more then riding ones bike. its all memory. the better memory in this game prevails. computers do not think. they just remember. Behind all this is the idea that a computer thinks as smart as man. it doesn't think. these games are for children with good memories. Its a grand champion error . Robert Byers
Go, Go! 1.44 * 10^768 strong. kairosfocus
Chess is played out, honestly. The small size of the board, the set positions of the pieces have doomed it to obsolescence. Now, if chess players would recognize that Bobby Fischer's "random" chess or Chess960 as it is known today, then it would completely revitalize the game. OldArmy94
The reason why computers are overwhelmed by the game of Go is that the probabilistic base (19x19) to be calculated in Go greatly exceeds current computational capacity (and will remain far beyond the reach of the computational capacity of computers in the foreseeable future): Epicycling Through The Materialist Meta-Paradigm Of Consciousness - May 2010 GilDodgen: One of my AI (artificial intelligence) specialties is games of perfect knowledge. See here: worldchampionshipcheckers.com In both checkers and chess humans are no longer competitive against computer programs, because tree-searching techniques have been developed to the point where a human cannot overlook even a single tactical mistake when playing against a state-of-the-art computer program in these games. On the other hand, in the game of Go, played on a 19×19 board (compared to 8x8 for chess and checkers), with a nominal search space of 19×19 factorial (1.4e+768), the best computer programs are utterly incompetent when playing against even an amateur Go player.,,, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/epicycling-through-the-materialist-meta-paradigm-of-consciousness/#comment-353454 bornagain77
The idea that Kasparov would probably lose to a computer program on a regular PC is ludicrous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Chess_against_computers tragic mishap
Kasparov has only lost once to a computer, and the one time he did lose he believes IBM cheated. He has drawn a few matches with computers. tragic mishap

Leave a Reply