You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The game of go and AI
- Thread starter Fen
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
There are many who consider Go to be more difficult than chess. It is at least on the same level as chess for a human being.
For a computer it is far more difficult than chess because there is no known approach which allows number crunching power to be usefully applied to Go.
All current high level chess programs use an algorithm which does an excellent job of assigning a valid numerical score to positions on the chess board. The chess playing programs look for moves and series of moves which lead to positions with a high score.
Von Neuman mini-max strategy is used, which is effective due to the validity of the scoring algorithm. While Deep Blue seems to display intelligent behavior, I would not call it an AI program because it really is just an example of number crunching being applied to a difficult task.
When I last paid attention to Bridge playing programs, they were also poor compared to a good (but not expert) human player. There is money to be made wtih a good bridge playing program, so the motivation is there.
For a computer it is far more difficult than chess because there is no known approach which allows number crunching power to be usefully applied to Go.
All current high level chess programs use an algorithm which does an excellent job of assigning a valid numerical score to positions on the chess board. The chess playing programs look for moves and series of moves which lead to positions with a high score.
Von Neuman mini-max strategy is used, which is effective due to the validity of the scoring algorithm. While Deep Blue seems to display intelligent behavior, I would not call it an AI program because it really is just an example of number crunching being applied to a difficult task.
When I last paid attention to Bridge playing programs, they were also poor compared to a good (but not expert) human player. There is money to be made wtih a good bridge playing program, so the motivation is there.
c1earwater
Registered Member
I did my thesis about Go. I tried to use genetic programming to find a min-max function that could analyse a 7x7 Go board. The functions were of the type like the emboss functions in paint programs and would fill up the board with black and white to predict the final position.
It did not work. Still, I got my thesis.
Current "good" go programs work by pattern recognision and localised number crunching. This works pretty well, but it's nowhere near the "Grand Master" level. I believe the best programs so far are at the level of an amateur 5th Kyu.
It did not work. Still, I got my thesis.
Current "good" go programs work by pattern recognision and localised number crunching. This works pretty well, but it's nowhere near the "Grand Master" level. I believe the best programs so far are at the level of an amateur 5th Kyu.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.