Silicon Smackdown

New Go algorithm aims to depose humans

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

A decade ago IBM's chess program, Deep Blue, beat world champion Garry Kasparov in a six-game match. The event marked a milestone, forcing humans to yield dominance of yet another strategic diversion. Only the Asian board game Go seemed to be computer science's Achilles' heel: humans could soundly beat the machines. A new algorithm can now take on strong human players--and win.

Go has proved enormously difficult for computer programmers because of the game's deceptive complexity. The objective of Go is to stake out territory and surround an opponent by placing black or white stones on the intersections of a nine-by-nine or 19-by-19 line grid. Especially on the large board, the number of possible moves per turn is huge--200 on average for each midgame position compared with the several dozen possible in chess. There are also enormous branching factors. Given N positions on the board, the total number of possible game positions is 3^N, because every position can be occupied by a black or white piece, or it can be empty. The total number of legal positions on the small board is about 1038; on the large board, about 10¹⁷⁰. Additionally, more stones do not ensure victory, and players must be able to consider local positions and the board as a whole.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American