Don Dailey wrote:
There have been several amazing breakthroughs in computer chess over the
years, so you don't know what you are talking about. You don't
really believe we achieved several hundred ELO with only incremental
refinements do you?
OK, what are the several amazing breakthroughs?
But I don't really care how you classify each breakthrough, whether you
want to call it a minor refinement or a breakthrough is probably one of
those things we could debate endless point by point. What matters is
that they added up to hundreds of ELO.
The same thing is happening in GO. MCTS must be considered a
breakthough and it has been continuously improved on now for a few years
and is producing programs many stones stronger that before this. Go
back to your programs of 40 years ago and compare them before being so
negative and pessimistic.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Dave Dyer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>This is WAY MORE than just alpha/beta and counting pieces.
Of course, but these are incremental improvements, not qualitative ones.
The 1950 chess program I described works pretty well. On modern
hardward,
that program would beat the pants of 99% of serious chess players.
By contrast, the corresponding Go program couldn't beat a goldfish.
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
