21–30 of 48 posts
Go should just be labeled Gogame in contrast to Golang.
Search for the word Go on the internet is next to impossible. Using the label gogame or baduk I think are adequate solutions. Also a go board is referred to as a goban.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool. I recently started working on a command line Go program. Mainly for learning Haskell and without any AI, yet. https://github.com/tsujigiri/gosh
Fun! I have a Haskell Go web app. It has a super experimental AI that can't actually win that I only spent a couple of hours on: https://github.com/tinco/ergo
After a few months of playing ... it's as good as a very strong human player. This is potentially a really big breakthrough if true, as Go is much harder than Chess computationally. Nobody knows about Go in the West though so don't expect any headlines.
Making good analogies is hard, but here's mine: current go programs are probably somewhere in the range of runners running a 2:45 marathon. They're beyond what most people can hope to reach, perhaps even with intensive training, but they're not world-class. In fact, they're not just below world-class: there are thousands of people better than them who are themselves not yet world class. (Context: I play go and run at a level far below the ones quoted above, but know people who play/run at that level. And I've seen those people get their butts kicked by stronger players/runners).
Go should just be labeled Gogame in contrast to Golang.
After a few months of playing ... it's as good as a very strong human player. This is potentially a really big breakthrough if true, as Go is much harder than Chess computationally. Nobody knows about Go in the West though so don't expect any headlines.
After a few months of playing ... it's as good as a very strong human player. This is potentially a really big breakthrough if true, as Go is much harder than Chess computationally. Nobody knows about Go in the West though so don't expect any headlines.
This is hard to evaluate. Explicit metrics would be good, but there's also a definitional point. Depending on who you ask, existing AI programs are as good as a very strong human player. Others will scoff at that characterization. The problem is what "very strong" means. Precisely, current programs can beat many professionals with a 4 stone handicap. Making good analogies is hard, but here's mine: current go programs…
I would bet that in a few years is going to be clear who is superior, the machine or the human.
Go should just be labeled Gogame in contrast to Golang.
After a few months of playing ... it's as good as a very strong human player. This is potentially a really big breakthrough if true, as Go is much harder than Chess computationally. Nobody knows about Go in the West though so don't expect any headlines.
This is hard to evaluate. Explicit metrics would be good, but there's also a definitional point. Depending on who you ask, existing AI programs are as good as a very strong human player. Others will scoff at that characterization. The problem is what "very strong" means. Precisely, current programs can beat many professionals with a 4 stone handicap. Making good analogies is hard, but here's mine: current go programs…
Go should just be labeled Gogame in contrast to Golang.
> Go should just be labeled Gogame in contrast to Golang. At the same time, there's something amusing about the idea that a six year-old programming language should cause a 2000 year old game to change its name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is hard to evaluate. Explicit metrics would be good, but there's also a definitional point. Depending on who you ask, existing AI programs are as good as a very strong human player. Others will scoff at that characterization. The problem is what "very strong" means. Precisely, current programs can beat many professionals with a 4 stone handicap. Making good analogies is hard, but here's mine: current go programs…
But, surely, they are going to improve the system, and fast. I would bet that in a few years is going to be clear who is superior, the machine or the human.
Here's a chart of current ratings of popular engines on online forums. The rating system is one of "kyu" and "dan" going from 25k to 1k to 1d to 9d.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?KGSBotRatings
Informally there's another rating system the "pro" rating system which is a bit ceremonial but also broadly assumed to be often higher than the amateur dan rankings.