Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!mv!mv.mv.com!sje
From: sje@mv.mv.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Subject: State enumeration
Message-ID: <D731tB.J4D@mv.mv.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: mv.mv.com
Sender: usenet@mv.mv.com (System Administrator)
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 15:31:58 GMT
Lines: 36

The main reason I comment on state space enumeration is that I
continue to see it misused as a complexity metric.  The most common
reference is go vs. chess where the larger enumeration of the former
is given as a reason for "superiority" over the latter.  This appears
from time to time from insecure go players (hopefully a small minority
of all go players) who attempt to dismiss chess as activity for those
with lesser intellects.

Sadly, some chessplayers are not immune to this sort of pomposity as
can be seen from occasional comments disparaging checkers as a "kid's
game".

I measure game complexity based on a game's influence and perfusion
through human culture and by the amount of interest it stimulates in
the research community over time.

Rhetorically:

Where are all the go programs?  Why is it that the topic doesn't
attract more than a very small fraction of researchers as compared to
chess?  Why is go, a much older game than chess by far, mainly
isolated in a few countries?  Where is the corpus of go literature in
culture and in programming that even remotely compares to that of
chess?

Subjectively:

Go is completely lacking in the crispness and decisiveness that
characterizes chess.  Go doesn't have the near-escapes, the surprise
thrusts, or even the swindles seen in chess.  Chessgames end in life
or death while go games end with an accounting tally.  Playing over a
go game is like watching two different spore molds fighting it out in
a Petri dish; fascinating for some, but of doubtful holding power for
most.

-- Steven (sje@mv.mv.com)
