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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American