Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,rec.games.go,rec.games.board,rec.games.programmer
Subject: Re: Strategic games, computational cost & implications
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:33:22 EST
 <1992Aug28.130329.3793@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug31.132753.7279@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM>
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <1992Aug31.132753.7279@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM>, mdobbins@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Michael Dobbins) writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.130329.3793@desire.wright.edu> jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:
>>Although I have never played go, it sounds to me that we are talking
>>about two seperate things.  Without meaning to start an arguement, I'd
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Guess I did anyway :).

>>say chess is more a more complex game, while go might be (I've never played
>>remember) a more difficult game.  I have somewhat arbitrarily choosen
>>these words but it seems that go has simplier moves and rules but has
>>more total postions and games.
My definition of 'complexity' is the level of difficulty for a human player
to learn to play.  This means knowing all of the possible moves, pieces,
etc.  My definition of 'difficulty' is the measure of effort required
to become a proficient player.


> 
> You have never played go?  Have you looked at the underlying principles
> for a digital computer?  2 state memory (0 or 1) plus 2 or 3 logic gates
> (nand, nor, not).  Simple rules which can create vast levels of
> complexity.  We can even use the computer programs that play chess and
> go to measure relative complexity.  Which is a more complex program, one
> which plays chess and beats a top world level chess player or one which
> plays go and beates a top world level go player.  I beleive we have a
> handle on the chess program. The go program is still a dream.
> 

I never meant to denigrate Go and I offered my perspective as a
(relatively speaking) objective outside observer.

> If you have never played go, how can we take your opinion about go
> seriously?   Play and study go seriously for about a year and then come
> back and tell us what you think about the complexity of go.
> 
I obviously am not the person to ask for intricate game strategies!
However, I think you should chill a little bit.  I did NOT say Go was
any of the following:  Boring, Easy, Stupid, or Simple.  In fact, I
think a game that is easy for a novice to learn to play, BUT difficutl
to master is probably better then one that requires a master to play
at ALL.  

Therefore, I gave GO  a compliment by saying it wasn't as complex as chess.

Anyway, I'd love to take you up on the offer to learn Go, except I have
other things to take care of right now (my pregnant wife, my 2 yr old
daughter, my job, my master's thesis, my house, etc., etc., ad nausium).

> Mike, 7kyu (a chess player who quit playing chess when I
> discovered go)
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
It is very    | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
often easier  | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
to get per-   +--------------------------------------------+--------------
mission then  | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ... and a   | Beatles:
forgiveness!  | minute is a LONG time [Includes Leap Days]!|   Yellow Submarine
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6534 rec.games.board:8312