erm.
you guys seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing,
without a clear or precise definition of what you're even
arguing about.
there is a mathematical proof that go, for any fixed sized
board, can be completely solved.
there is a mathematical proof that given a fixed komi and
fixed number
Robert Waite wrote:
whether or not computers can beat humans at go on a
19x19 board in a reasonable amount of time is unrelated
to mathematics.
Why? Let's say you can prove that the game is solvable so that black
wins. Let's say that you can prove that it is solvable in linear time.
You
You mentioned three proofs relating to go... could you post the links to the
papers?
the first two statements are consequences of the following:
all two-person, finite, zero-sum games have solutions. *
for a more precise statement, see john von neumann's 1928 paper:
Von Neumann, J: Zur
Robert Waite skrev:
* The MCTS technique appears to be extremely scalable. The theoretical
* * papers about it claim that it scales up to perfect play in theory.
** We agree here that this is not true of course.
*
No, I think we disagree this time my friend!
Monte Carlo of
It's the tree search part where everything is happening. Eventually,
enough of the tree is explored to find a win or prove a loss.
- Don
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 20:11 +0100, Raymond Wold wrote:
Dan Andersson wrote:
No more incredible than that Mini-Max and Alpha-Beta will generate
perfect
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 15:19 -0400, Robert Waite wrote:
Hmm.. I dunno.. I think there are a lot of ideas floating around but
some miscommunications.
So the aim is to devise a computer that will beat the strongest human
players of go.
I hear that Monte-Carlo with UCT is proven to be
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Robert Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Okay.. so where is the paper that correlates the speed at which MCwUCT
approaches perfect play with the ability to play a human? They seem
unrelated as of yet.
The closest I've seen are these two studies Don made:
Robert,
Do you know what Occam's razor is?
Einstein originally believed that the universe was static. When this
didn't fit his observations he invented the cosmological constant,
which he considered one of his biggest blunders.
If we are going to continue to discuss this, then if you
On Aug 10, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Robert Waite wrote:
Exhaustive search is scalable in that I could give it all the
memory and time it wanted. And it would approach a finite amount of
memory and a finite amount of time.
Yes, but exhausitve search does not improve your player by 63% (eg.)
for a
