Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Research Takes On Go
mikejuk writes "Microsoft Research has used F# and AI to implement a consumer-quality game of Go — arguably the most difficult two-person game to implement. They have used an interesting approach to the problem of playing the game, which is a pragmatic cross between tree search with pruning and machine learning to spot moves with a 'good shape.' The whole lot has been packaged into an XNA-based game with a story."
Monte Carlo
Yes, it's just a variant of Monte Carlo, but don't knock it. Recent programs implementing the algorithm have improved their handicaps by up to 5 stones, which is huge. The top bots at the KGS Go server are now ranked up to 4 dan (like a good amateur player) in games against humans.
You may want to read this short article in the Guardian about these recent improvements in the MoGo go bot. In October 2009 (6 months after this article appeared) a version of MoGo finally beat a top-ranking (9 dan) professional in an even game on a 9x9 board.
This article reads like a commercial without any scientific background w.r.t. the algorithms used. They even state it does not perform as well as other available programs.
Still, interested giving the game a try? It is really simple.
Start here to learn the rules: http://playgo.to/iwtg/
Like the problem solving, this is a good site for problems: http://goproblems.com/ Note, 30kyu problems are the easiest, then 25kyu etc. Hardest are the dan problems. (Believe me, they are really difficult)
Want to play against the computer? GnuGo is your friend> http://www.gnu.org/software/gnugo/gnugo.html
Playing against real oponents on the web, there are 2 options: Turn-based (the slow progress variant) or real-time. I can recommend for the turn-based variant Dragon Go Server and Online Go Server: http://www.dragongoserver.net/ http://www.online-go.com/
Personally, I'm not into real-time, but KGS is an alternative: http://www.gokgs.com/ Note, people might not always be in the mood for chatting here.
Getting hooked, try to find a local club or check for players in your neighbourhood: http://igolocal.net/
Have fun.
In practice the problem you see (ambiguities in the endgame) are only really an issue for computer Go.
Wrong. New players frequently have a hard time understanding Japanese rules. This is why people like Kim0 exist. On their own, the Japanese rules logically don't make sense. You have to know how to play to end the game, and you have to know how to end the game before you can learn how to play.
Instead, new players should be referred to Chinese-style rules. The Japanese rules are fine for experienced players.
Perhaps a good analogy is poetry
No, that's a terrible analogy. There are no rules to poetry, and there is no winner and loser. You're just adding confusion.
The rule is that game is over when both players agree that it is over: if there is a disagreement, the game is played on.
That's the problem with Japanese rules. It is not easy to "play on" and determine the score. It is trivial with Chinese-style rules.
Go is a truly fascinating game, and also a very human one (computers will play it well one day, but probably about the same time that they get good at writing poems, playing tricks, or asking why).
Computers already play the game well. They have reached dan status.