Originally posted by vipiuIndeed. They made the same claim about chess programs back in the 70's, that it would be impossible to ever develop one that could beat a grandmaster, etc.
never say impossible 🙂
There are a number of Go programs out there, are they really that weak?
Originally posted by FabianFnasyeah but its boring. there are only one kind of pieces.
Game of Go is not at all boring when you get the hang of it. When you get the feeling of it and start to win then it is very much fascinating.
It is 'relatively' easy to write a computer program to play Checkers.
It is not too hard to write a computer program to play Chess.
It is impossible to write a computer program to play the Game of Go that win ...[text shortened]... haven't seen any.
Game of Go is a matter of pattern recognition, far beyond that of Chess.
Originally posted by FabianFnasActually there have been recent advances in software for Go, they are no longer getting beaten up by 8th Q players, now taking on the higher ranks of amatuer, 2-3Q. So it's not impossible there will be a computer world champ level player in 20 years.
Game of Go is not at all boring when you get the hang of it. When you get the feeling of it and start to win then it is very much fascinating.
It is 'relatively' easy to write a computer program to play Checkers.
It is not too hard to write a computer program to play Chess.
It is impossible to write a computer program to play the Game of Go that win ...[text shortened]... haven't seen any.
Game of Go is a matter of pattern recognition, far beyond that of Chess.
The 'decline' in chess interest is merely a temporary condition as chess like all things of interest has its fashionable periods and its unfashionable periods. It merely suffers a little now in an unfashionable period. These periods can last many years and not so many depending on the prevailing circumstances. However the dedicated players never lose interest and with chess 961 and the other variants of Fischer random chess there are plenty of 'new chess' ideas to keep a general population interest alive. Although it is true that 'all chess games' however they may start are drawable should this be the desire of both players or only one player, it be a human condition that most players do not see this as desirable and that consequently chess will for ever be competitive, be it played in 'regular' form or not.Remove this human competitive spirit and a desire 'to win' and chess becomes as mathematical as 'checkers'.
Originally posted by ChessJesterThe best move is to start somewhere in the cornders to control it before the opponent does int. The 3-3 point or thereabout is a good start point to chose.
me too, its interesting and very complex indeed... but I think that whoever moves first has the advantage by taking the middle ground... but I could be wrong.
Actually there is opening books on the beginning lines in Game of Go, as in game of Chess.
Originally posted by RECUVICWhat US needs now is a new Fischer. Without such a character chess in US will decline into nothing.
The 'decline' in chess interest is merely a temporary condition as chess like all things of interest has its fashionable periods and its unfashionable periods. It merely suffers a little now in an unfashionable period. These periods can last many years and not so many depending on the prevailing circumstances. However the dedicated players never lose interes ...[text shortened]... titive spirit and a desire 'to win' and chess becomes as mathematical as 'checkers'.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI understand when you say Go is more complicated than chess. I learned how to play about a year ago, bought "The Game of Go" by Arthur Smith (The equivalent of the MCO, but also includes more on the history and basic theory of the game.) Even though the book is less than one-third the volume of my MCO-14, my head spun waaay more. It is quite an interesting game.
Game of Go is not at all boring when you get the hang of it. When you get the feeling of it and start to win then it is very much fascinating.
It is 'relatively' easy to write a computer program to play Checkers.
It is not too hard to write a computer program to play Chess.
It is impossible to write a computer program to play the Game of Go that win ...[text shortened]... haven't seen any.
Game of Go is a matter of pattern recognition, far beyond that of Chess.
Unfortunately I cannot find ANYONE who either knows how to play or is willing to be lead blindly by another blind person and try to learn go with me. Can anyone recommend a site to learn and play?
"What US needs now is a new Fischer. Without such a character chess in US will decline into nothing."
I disagree with the nothing part. Chess will survive, like...live theatre survives. It's out there, it can flourish in surprising places, but it's impact and influence is much weakened. I agree with the need for identifiable characters- there have never been as many alternatives for game players as there are now...and tomorrow there'll be more! Electronic entertainment will continue to hoover up some significant % of youngsters who might have fallen in love with chess.
As an American with a weak sense of history, I'd say the high point of popularity was Spassky-Fischer '72.
Originally posted by HeyDrezaI agree.
"What US needs now is a new Fischer. Without such a character chess in US will decline into nothing."
I disagree with the nothing part. Chess will survive, like...live theatre survives. It's out there, it can flourish in surprising places, but it's impact and influence is much weakened. I agree with the need for identifiable characters- there have never ...[text shortened]... th a weak sense of history, I'd say the high point of popularity was Spassky-Fischer '72.
However, we need someone with charisma, personality - but without the insanity of fischer.
Originally posted by HeyDreza"into nothing" was too strong, I agree. But there are a lot of countries that are not famous for it's chess players, and US will be one of them, I'm afraid.
"What US needs now is a new Fischer. Without such a character chess in US will decline into nothing."
Like tennis experienced a bonanza in tennis with Björn Borg, US experienced a bonanza with Fischer. US experience a bonanza in golf with Tiger Woods. US needs a Tiger in chess.
US with it's 240 million people should have a more prominent role in Chess.
(* sorry that I know nothing about golf. I hope you oversee any faults in my passage of that game *)