> I have read dozens of times that computer-Go is the next big challenge. > But in fact it is a completly amateuristic field where even the most basic > things are missing.
one thing that it seems to have plenty of is chess programmers who are shocked and surprised that their lack of knowledge about the game of go somehow seems to affect their ability to write a go playing program. it's as if they are so used to their success with chess that they simply cannot understand why and how it could come to pass that they aren't already writing the best go playing programs in the world. 9x9 is a learning game. it's as if you could teach children to play chess on a 5x5 board. no, there wouldn't be databases of thousands of professional such games, because professionals are mostly spending their time playing 19x19 go. the *only* reason that 9x9 go has such appeal in the computer go community is because it is more tractable. success is much more easily "measured" on a 9x9 board. but that's not the fault of the game, and is unrelated to how and on what size board most real-world games are played. > There are no proper interfaces, no serious tournaments, a wired data > standard... this is a strange claim. i wonder what you mean by "no proper interfaces" and "no serious tournaments". is a serious tournament one where a lot of money is at stake? or is it where the best programs in the world get together to compete? because the latter happens quite frequently. > AND there is no money involved: most people doing this aren't doing this to make money, although some are. as far as corporate support for a strong go-playing machine is concerned, or for very-well-funded tournaments (for instance), there hasn't been enough success on a 19x19 board for the *expected* result of such funding to result in games that anyone would want to watch. the go-playing community can pick up a daily newspaper and see a professional game of such quality that programs cannot hope to match at this point. why would the general public want to watch a public demonstration of a program that can be beaten by many 10-year-old children? and if, 6 months from now, someone has a 19x19 program that can beat an arbitrary 10-year-old child, will that be a spectacle worth paying to watch? > If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money. the ~$1M prize stood for years without being touched. the development of a program/machine that could win that prize (i.e. beat an insei or a professional) would generate a tremendous about of interest in computer go, and i am quite sure that public challenges would be well-funded. keep in mind that in the professional go-playing community, tournament winnings can vary quite a bit -- only a few players could hope to make a living from one or two tournament wins -- everyone else must spend their free time teaching students for pay, writing articles, etc. maybe this isn't so different from the chess world after all. how strong were chess programs when the push for Deep Blue happened? were they the equivalent of ~1300 ELO weaker than professional play? s. ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
