Deep Blue rehash and a possible Deep Go

[jshriver]

Article posted today I thought was interesting, and you all might too.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5552/

Hope I posted this in the right section, mods feel free to move if it's not.

-Josh

[PK-4]

Very interesting article indeed. The idea of packing a deep blue into a single chip was a little tough on imagination.

P.K.Mukhopadhyay

[Mark]

Article posted today I thought was interesting, and you all might too.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5552/

Hope I posted this in the right section, mods feel free to move if it's not.

-Josh

Thanks for the link, Josh. Interesting article!

Mark

[Bill Rogers]

The really funny funny thing is that GO initally looks so simple to code.
I had seen some early attempts of GO code and was supprised what little it took. Unlike chess where there are 6 different pieces that all move in different directions with different rules attached, all GO pieces are the same and they don't move at all. But the amazing thing is as simple as it looks the advancements in GO have been going so slow only go to show just how complicated the game really is.
Bil

[nczempin]

The really funny funny thing is that GO initally looks so simple to code.
I had seen some early attempts of GO code and was supprised what little it took. Unlike chess where there are 6 different pieces that all move in different directions with different rules attached, all GO pieces are the same and they don't move at all. But the amazing thing is as simple as it looks the advancements in GO have been going so slow only go to show just how complicated the game really is.
Bil

This observation is true even in the human realm: Take any given person who does not know either game, and see which is easier to teach.

But trying to get your head wrapped around Go is much harder (IMHO, having played both) because chess is a much more tactical game, and thus it is easier to determine exactly at which point you lost or won the game.

And yes, it would take much more code to get a chess engine working a basic alpha-beta than it would to support the same in Go (although I have only actually tried one of the two).

[yoshiharu]

Article posted today I thought was interesting, and you all might too.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5552/

Has anybody any reference of what he calls the "method of analogy" algorithm?

Cheers, Mauro

[bob]

It came from Botvinnik's book "Computers, chess and long-range planning". published by Springer-Verlag in 1970. Dates _way_ back. Most of it appears to be extremely difficult to implement, particularly since his program "Pioneer" never worked at all.

[Tony]

Article posted today I thought was interesting, and you all might too.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5552/

Has anybody any reference of what he calls the "method of analogy" algorithm?

Cheers, Mauro

It was implemented in Caissa, a Russian chesprogram (1974 ?) They have published some stuff about it.

Tony

[hgm]

The really funny funny thing is that GO initally looks so simple to code.
I had seen some early attempts of GO code and was supprised what little it took. Unlike chess where there are 6 different pieces that all move in different directions with different rules attached, all GO pieces are the same and they don't move at all. But the amazing thing is as simple as it looks the advancements in GO have been going so slow only go to show just how complicated the game really is.
Bil

The rules for capture in Go are not that simple. You would have to do a boundary scan on each chain that borders a newly placed stone.

I strongl doubt that a Go program could be written that is as small as micro-Max...

[Zach Wegner]

I strongl doubt that a Go program could be written that is as small as micro-Max...

I do not. I have a fully functional UCT program that is about 500 lines total, that I plan to compress down a lot. Right now it has many unnecessary lines and long variable names.