Actually computers are far more sophisticated than merely 'adding
machines'. IN fact the computer algorithms that play chess are not brute
force. The brute force ones are the ones all GMs and Ims can easily
defeat.
Computers see many strategical advantages such as doubled pawns, isolated
pawns etc _ these are all built in - Computers will choose moves based on
above IF there are no branches that will give them an even greater
advantage.
In fact computers make better decisions by valuing material over positions
a bit more than humans . Humans tend to make more unsound sacrifices.
Computers don't do so (though they can be programmed to)
I think the problem with making a computer play these games is to develop
the algorithm which is a human endeavor. the computer is a machine that
can handle and process logic that we program.
Once an algorithm is developed to prune the unnecessary branches for Go
and Arimaa then computers will easily dominate. Perhaps the problem with
these games is that there is not enough theory yet to develop a suitable
algorithm.
What is been forgotten here are the brilliant programmers who contributed
to the current chess machines we see now.
So no breakthrough in computer technology is needed at all, just more
human minds translating the strategy/tactics needed to win into
programming.
Pattern recognition is not a problem for computers but this is a vague
notion at best. Humans tend to go with a 'feel' for something. This
'feel' cannot be translated logically. The computer needs something more
tangible.
I think winning patterns can be programmed into Go, but the Masters must
be willing to GIVE UP THEIR secrets!
Exactly how much literature is out there for Go and especially Arimaa ?
I think Go is the next challenge of computer programmers.
Arimaa is simply not popular enough to be taken seriously by computer
programmers.
