Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utcsri!cdf.toronto.edu!g2jdr
From: g2jdr@cdf.toronto.edu (Rootham James Douglas)
Subject: Re: Chess - exhaustive searching
Message-ID: <D73Cu8.BL@cdf.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@cdf.toronto.edu (Usenet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: puck
Organization: University of Toronto, Computing Disciplines Facility
References: <scottecD6FAH9.2pp@netcom.com> <D6zECo.C24@mv.mv.com> <GEERT.95Apr14194948@sparc.aie.nl> <D71LAz.GzF@mv.mv.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 19:30:07 GMT
Lines: 31

In article <D71LAz.GzF@mv.mv.com>, Steven J. Edwards <sje@mv.mv.com> wrote:
>
>I think that state space enumeration is a shaky foundation to compare
>the complexity of go and chess.  I think that go, while being
>difficult to program, has not had the attention that has been seen by
>chess and checkers (draughts).  That is the main reason why there are
>not world class go programs.  I suspect that there is a possibility of
>someone finding a fast pattern recognition algorithm for go that could
>be easily programmed if only one knew what it was.  I do not think
>there is a similar algorithm for chess or checkers.
>

Look in http://www.cs.vu.nl/~victor/thesis.html for a comparative
analysis of game complexity.  You are incorrect about the lack of
effort put into go programming.  There has been a world computer go
championship for some time now (with fairly serious prizes) and good
go programmes have significant market possiblities.  As far as
academic motivation goes cracking go would be a major feather in
anyones hat at this point.  The reason there doesn't seem to be much
effort is that there has not been a lot of success and therefore not
much reported.  Many of the current algorithms have invested heavily
in pattern recognition.  It doesn't seem to have triggered a
breakthrough (although it has improved things).

Jim Rootham
g2jdr@cdf.utoronto.ca


-- 
Jim Rootham   g2jdr@cdf.utoronto.ca

