Le dimanche 8 juillet 2007 11:51, chrilly a écrit : > If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money. There was a computer challenge with 1 million dollar prize during many years, for a program abble to beat one professional choosen by the sponsor. I don't know if it is still valid offer.
> In chess > nowadays there is also no money. But once it was a good business and there > was some considerable money for Deep Blue and on a smaller scale also for > Hydra, there was Don's project at MIT, one got a big Cray for Cray-Blitz, > Ken Thompson build a chess engine.... > Its like some hobbyst engineers and hobby-pilots would try to fly to the > moon. Titanic was build by professionals, and Noah's arch by an amateur ;-) (Kon Tiki is a more recent and scientific exemple of incredible amateurish success) > Its probably only good for to write some academic papers. In this case its > even an advantage that everything is so amateuristic. The general level is > low and one can be the one-eyed king under blind ones. If i remeber, last year you said something like "As a professional programmer, i don't want to ruin my reputation with a poor go program" :-) And the state of the art is: go programs are just dumb on 19x19, lots of research are needed, but more engeneering power would probably do nothing. > > Its clear to me that things are as they are in the West. Go is played only > by a small freak community. But if it is so important in China/Korea/Japan > why is'nt there something like Fritz and ChessBase? Or does it exist and we > are living in a completly other Go-world? Some dozens of 9x9 pro games are at http://gobase.org/9x9/ There are databases of nearly 50000 pro games on 19X19, this should be good enough for some years in computer go. 9x9 is a teaching tool, or a fun tactical exercice, but it is not Go because of lack of strategy. Alain _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
