Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck" (potential heresy

On Apr 2, 6:07 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> I'm surprised you didn't mention Go here, since it has a bigger game
> tree. Of course, computers are improving there too, but at least it
> has a little time left.

Go is often mentioned in discussions of large game trees.  I think
it's a little overestimated though.  Starting out you've got 361
places to move and then 360 and so on, so there is of course a
tremendous branching factor.  A crude estimate of the number of final
board positions would be 3^361.  Each of the 361 intersections can be
empty, black, or white.  (It's a high estimate because you'll usually
end up with the board approximately half filled.  You won't have a
final position with 3 stones on the board.)  You can always move
anywhere you want, except eyes.  On top of that it's a difficult game
to program, adding to the mystique.  But the thing that's often
overlooked is redundancy.  There are a gazillion ways to arrive at any
particular position, effectively reducing the game tree size to a
something manageable for humans.  In other words the possibilities
aren't so astronomical that you never are able to form any kind of a
strategy.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a big fan of Go equipment.  I've designed 5
games for it in the past 16 years: Tanbo, Rush, Crossway, Oust, and
Palisade (http://marksteeregames.com).
 I believe in simple rules and
simple equipment.  Equipment doesn't get much simpler than that of Go.

>
> Then there's the game of Gess, which seems to have been deliberately
> devised to be a game for supergeniuses and extraordinarily difficult
> for computers.
>

I can't imagine a more ***bersome game.  Game equipment should be used
(I believe) in the manner for which it was originally intended.  So
for example, stones should be added, not moved, one at a time, and
occasionally a stone placement is accompanied by the removal of a
group of stones.