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

[Jim O'Flaherty, Jr.]

David,

Very well said.  Thank you.


Jim


David Doshay wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>