Newsgroups: comp.ai.games,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!quanta.com!internetMCI!darwin.sura.net!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!news.jhu.edu!aplcenmp!hall
From: hall@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall)
Subject: Re: The game: GO
Message-ID: <DGE295.738@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>
Organization: JHU/APL AI Lab, Hopkins P/T CS Faculty
References: <45i0m7$ob4@hpax.cup.hp.com> <45jo2l$j8d@news.bu.edu> <GEERT.95Oct12232108@sparc.aie.nl>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:17:28 GMT
Lines: 13
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.games:2508 comp.ai:34064

In article <GEERT.95Oct12232108@sparc.aie.nl> geert@sparc.aie.nl 
(Geert-Jan van Opdorp) writes:

>There are quite a number of aspects of the game that can
>more or less be quantified. The problem is that most of
>them are hard to define formally.

Hard, but I don't think that they are that much harder to define
than in chess, etc. What makes Go so much harder to program is the
tremendously huge branching factor (in the 300's for the early game,
vs. an average of about 35 for chess).
						- Marty
(proclaim '(inline skates))
