More hardware would help, of course.
More data would be good. Particularly useful would be game records
(for training) and sets of whole-board positions (9x9 and 19x19).
Pattern libraries and opening libraries would be good, too, but
incorporating them into existing programs may be difficult.
I think the interesting algorithmic area is somehow localizing the
search. My team is working on it...
The community is quite good. I wonder if a 13x13 CGOS would help,
because many of us are doing well at 9x9, but 19x19 is MUCH harder.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
On Jul 27, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Darren Cook wrote:
I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is
at least 3-dan by 2010. The recent jump in strength on the 9x9 board
has
given me new hope and I want to ask people here, especially the
authors
of strong programs, what you now need to make the next jump in
strength.
There seem to be four broad categories:
* More hardware (CPU cycles? Memory? Faster networking? Do you just
need that hardware for offline tuning, or for playing too?)
* More data
* New algorithms (if so, to solve exactly what? evaluation? search?
other?)
* More community
By community I mean things like this mailing list, CGOS, open source
projects, etc.
By data I mean things like: game records, or board positions, marked
up
with correct/incorrect moves; game records generally; pattern
libraries;
test suites; opening libraries.
Darren
--
Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer
http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic
open source dictionary/semantic network)
http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work)
http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...)
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
