Newsgroups: comp.ai.games
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!world!mv!mv.mv.com!sje
From: sje@mv.mv.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Subject: Re: State enumeration
Message-ID: <D74xrx.Hqp@mv.mv.com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: mv.mv.com
Sender: usenet@mv.mv.com (System Administrator)
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 15:59:56 GMT
References: <D731tB.J4D@mv.mv.com> <D73Dor.1ov@cdf.toronto.edu>
Lines: 49

g2jdr@cdf.toronto.edu (Rootham James Douglas) writes:

>In article <D731tB.J4D@mv.mv.com>, Steven J. Edwards <sje@mv.mv.com> wrote:

>>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.

>There are lots of go programmes.  The simple ones don't do anything at
>all and the complicated ones aren't very good (relative to good human
>players), so they don't get reported in the literature.  There is go
>literature, I think even more go literature than chess literature, it
>is written in Japanese (there is probably a bunch more in Chinese that
>I don't know anything about).  Don't be quite so narrow minded.

Computer chess playing programs existed for twenty years before they
were strong enough to beat rank amateurs, and there were plenty of
reports during this early period.  Considering how hard it was to get
machine time in the old days, it is even more of a wonder.

There are more books in print on chess than any other game.  This is
true today and has been true since the second book ever mass produced
by movable type: _The Game and Play of Chess_.

>Go contains everything that you say chess has and go does not.  If you
>don't think so I must simply assume that you don't know enough about
>go to be competent to comment on the game.

If go works for someone, fine.  I hope that people continue to work on
go programs because there's the chance that results of general
significance could be applied to other fields.

Oh, and your assumption is simple indeed; I first played go 22 years
ago, I have several sets at home along with copies of a number of go
books and computer go research papers.  I did the first port of gnugo
to the Macintosh years ago and have also done some original go
programming.  I think I have given it a fair chance, and I stand by my
earlier evaluation that go is just not in the same league as chess.

Please note that I do not intend any of this as a criticism of
oriental culture.  I play shogi and chinese chess and have programs
for both.  They are both rather interesting and have concepts not
included in the scope of chess.

I was wrong about the Petri dish, though.  I meant "Petri tray" as
most are rectanglar instead of circular and the shape more closely
matches a go board.

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