[computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge

[David Doshay]

Chrilly,

It is hard to disagree with what Jim writes, but I will in a small way.

When I recently flew to Asia, the screen on the seatback in front of  
me offered Go as one of its games. At its highest level it played far  
worse than the average program on CGOS or in a KGS computer  
tournament, and yet somebody was paid by that airline for the use of  
that program. And Go++ makes a living for its programmer.

There is money to be made in computer Go, but as Jim states, right  
now the risk/reward ratio does not encourage most normal investors,  
so it is for either 1) those with a high risk threshold, 2) those who  
think more about research than production, 3) those motivated by how  
hard it is and not put off by how much effort it is going to take, or  
4) programmers of other games who underestimate how hard it really  
is. Please do not take offense by number 4. I have huge respect for  
your programming ability and am glad that you have joined us.


Cheers,
David



On 8, Jul 2007, at 8:36 AM, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote:

> Chrilly,
>
> The purpose of investment is to generate a return exceeding the  
> original investment, i.e. a profit.  Given the state of Go, I am  
> finding it difficult to imagine why an investor would choose to put  
> any good money into Go.  There is absolutely no reliable  
> expectation that Go will achieve even close to strong amateur  
> status (1D) in the next couple of years.  It's possible some  
> wealthy person might decide to generously donate money into the  
> computer Go domain so as to forward his own passion, just as many  
> of the people here generously donate their own very valuable  
> personal time.  Go is not a reasonable place to put investments.   
> At present and from everything I can see, computer Go development  
> depends upon personal passion and generosity.  And sans a huge  
> breakthrough, I am currently unable to see this changing anytime soon.
>
> That said, I think once Go AI becomes sufficiently and robustly  
> skilled to reliably start giving strong amateurs (>1D) genuinely  
> competitive games, you will start to see investment rise.  And  
> given a sufficiently high enough rate of change (objectively  
> measured as increases in playing skill), you will start to see the  
> investments accelerate as competition will spur on more innovation  
> resulting in more successes resulting in more investment resulting  
> in further innovation...and a positive feedback loop will be boot  
> strapped.  As the probability of producing profits rise, the risk  
> around insufficient returns on an investment fall.  Eventually a  
> threshold is crossed and the system becomes self-generative.
>
> Succinctly put - there is no money in computer Go (at least  
> compared to computer Chess) because there is currently no hope  
> (mathematically speaking) of the existing crop of computer Go  
> programs to scale up to anything less than moderate amateur  
> levels.  Once this changes from no hope to a remote possibility,  
> the investment around Go will likely follow.
>
> No to be too "Zen" here, but...the sooner you accept things as they  
> are and stop resisting "what is", the sooner you become free to  
> move forward.  Go investment is working exactly as it ought, in  
> relation to the "whole".
>
> Finally, thank you for your contribution to computer Go.  I get  
> that it is an act of generosity (realistically, what else could it  
> possibly be).  And I personally appreciate it.
>
>
> Jim