Talk:Computer Go

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Image:Go-60sq.jpg

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Go, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the game of Go. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Use the + tab at top to add new comments at the end.

Contents

[edit] Initial Comments

I think this page should include a reference to the important free Go-playing program GNU Go.

In the absence of Wikipedia pages describing Go++, Many Faces of Go and GNU Go, why not provide external links to pages describing these programs? 13:31, 27 May 2003 210.8.232.5

Done. :-) Evercat 13:41 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast. I'm impressed. 13:48, 27 May 2003 210.8.232.5

According to http://www.gnu.org/software/gnugo/gnugo.html, "GNU Go won the 19x19 tournament at the Computer Olympiad 2003 after winning all its 10 games!" Their site also seems to think that GNU Go is at least as strong as Many Faces. Paullusmagnus 23:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does it say that about MF? Anyway, I think it's true that GNU Go is quite decent these days, though I'm not sure it's quite overtaken MF or Go++. Evercat 01:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Just an update. The 2004 Computer Olympiad was last month, and the winner for both 19X19 and 9X9 Go was Go Intellect. Many Faces of Go came in second in 19X19 after losing a play-off to Go Intellect. GNU Go took second in 9X9 but came in second to last in 19X19. You can see the complete results here: http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/olympiad2004/results.html
Greyweather 01:46, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I read this "The strongest programs are as weak as players that have played the game for mere months, and are no match to a seasoned player." and was quite embarrassed. There are some 12k computer programs out there and I'm only 15k after playing for 3 years! I may not be a very good player but there are man people like me. 18:44, 4 September 2005 202.122.139.99

To the two explanations of why go is hard for computers, 1) many legal moves and 2) no eval. function, I think you should add 3) long game. If a program is computing a variation tree it's not only the breadth that makes it difficult, but the length. Things like playing for good shape in the opening can't be evaluated by going through variations, since their benefit will come 200 moves later in a fight or in having priveledge to a good endgame move. 6 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

I don't really understand this line. "At the same time, even beginner go players are able to look about 60 moves ahead in some positions like shicho (ladder), while even a grandmaster in chess is able to look only about 10 moves ahead." I presume they mean that when playing chess, chess grandmasters only need to look 10 moves ahead, right? The way it's phrased now it sounds like they mean that chess grandmasters are so used to the style of their own game that in Go, they're much more limited than beginner Go players. The external link didn't clarify either. Weefz 20:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Computer go programming? [Done]

It seems to me that this article and Computer go programming could happily live in one place (albeit, in a well-organized fashion). As an enthusiast in this field, I find myself paging between both articles to get "the whole story". Certainly the section headers of this article (Difficulties, The future, New approaches to the problem) refer to programming. Likewise, I think several of the sections in the other article (Philosophies, Problems that arise, etc.) now or soon will overlap with content here as the articles expand. Or not; just a thought. Thoughts? --Ds13 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There does appear to be a difference in tone between the two articles. The Computer Go section could be of interest to an intelligent layman, or someone who may be interested in buying a Go program. The Computer Go programming section is much more technical and of interest to someone who is thinking of writing a Go program. I am not against this distinction, as it allows the programming section to tackle the real nitty-gritty of the technical issues. At the moment, I don't feel strongly about this, but as this articles get bigger and better, I suspect that having two articles will become more useful than now. Stephen B Streater 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose to merge 2 articles together

I would like to merge both computer Go & computer Go programming.
Reasons are as follows:

  • the topics are very similar (Wikipedia policy says 2 similar topics should be merged!)
  • there're duplication between 2 articles
  • information on one article can enrich the contents on another
  • since they are highly relevant, readers are interested to read both at the same time.
  • it provides better integration if 2 articles join together
  • no linking confusion - some link to computer Go, some link to computer Go programming

Feel free to express your opinions! Thanks a lot! --Wai Wai 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a merge. The current state is confusing and overlaps. "Computer Go" is probably the best name for the merged article, but even the section headings there already overlap with each other. Good luck and thanks for taking this on... --Ds13 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other links [Done]

I suggest an Other links section:

  • [Ideosphere] gives current estimate of whether a Go program will be best player in the world
  • [London Open] is a short mobile video blog of the latest London Open Go Tournament

Stephen B Streater 10:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Section added. Stephen B Streater 06:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Go solved

I believe a friend showed that 5x5 is a first player win even if black cannot start in the centre. Can anyone verify this independently? Stephen B Streater 21:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History?

It might be nice to have a history section, mentioning computer go in the context of other AI research and computer chess programming. Also worth mentioning: the influence of the Ing prize, tournament history, and some of the milestones achieved. --IanOsgood 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Got bored and started filling in a History section under competitions. --IanOsgood 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who is "Muller"?

This article has cites for "Muller", but I don't see it listed anywhere but with inline cites. --Falcorian (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but it is likely to be Martin Müller, a computer go researcher, author of Go Explorer. --IanOsgood 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever of his writings is being referenced needs to be put in the article then. Any idea how to find it? --Falcorian (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It apparently is already there (the Artificial Intelligence 134 article). I went ahead and turned them into footnotes. --IanOsgood 20:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go

I have multiple Go books, and it is sometimes capitalised. I'll include some examples in a minute... Stephen B Streater 15:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cites for capital G in Go:

Cites for small g:

So my random sample of books seems to prefer a small g after all. I'd take this over to Go so we can get a consensus for all the related articles and see if we can make them consistent. I think last time it was discussed, Go was preferred. Stephen B Streater 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Capital "Go" is prefered. It is a better convention really. Reasons have been stated in Talk:Go. Sensei's Library uses capital "Go" too --Wai Wai 17:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Progressive complexity

The new section on progressive complexity was interesting but not true:

  • Chess gets more complex as the pieces develop, and only then gets easier as the pieces are removed
  • The number of legal moves in Go generally decreases as the game proceeds
  • The number of plausible Go moves also decreases at the end - until pass is the only realistic option for both players and the game ends.
  • Fewer moves or pieces doesn't make the position simpler if computers/people are expected to look more moves ahead to compensate.

Stephen B Streater 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language choice

I am a fan of java and all but there seems to be an off topic rant hyping up java in the language choice section... this should be removed. --Dave1g 07:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you oppose all mention of Java, or just the focus on memory management and other internal language issues? If I was writing this section, I would focus on the accessibility to the end user. Stephen B Streater 08:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As a programmer I have to say that this section better be removed. There is no information in it that is go-specific . With little changes it could be standing on the Computer_chess page. Rewrite it with more focus on go-content or remove it.

Bhaak 09:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur. In fact, the whole section could go, considering there is already a Wikibook covering these kind of computer Go details. --IanOsgood 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objection to removing this section? --ZincBelief 15:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removing anything not notably specific to computer Go. That removes most of it. However, I think maintaining a very factual, perhaps tabular, list of notable Go programs and their implementation language(s) could be valuable. No commentary or pros and cons or speculation necessary; just the facts. I think that would be encyclopedic. --Ds13 06:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I could see the value of this. There is a lot of inteesting history along that path. Perhaps a seperate article might be needed though? I will mention this on wikipedia Go project.--ZincBelief 10:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endgame

What on earth is the following paragraph trying to say? Am I missing something, or is it incomprehensible.

In Go, to an application of the kind of game analysis pioneered by John H. Conway, who invented surreal numbers to analyze games and Go endgames in particular, an idea much further developed in application to Go by Elwyn R. Berlekamp and David Wolfe. It is outlined in their book, Mathematical Go (ISBN 1-56881-032-6). While not of general utility in most play, it greatly aids the analysis of certain classes of positions.--ZincBelief 13:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7EComputer_Go_4fa1.html"