Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:51:32 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 13:15:36, blass uri wrote: >On July 01, 2000 at 12:55:00, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On July 01, 2000 at 12:21:51, Adrien Regimbald wrote: >> >>>Hey, >>> >>>>Chinook is better at checkers than anything else on the planet -- by a wide >>>>margin. >>> >>> >>>Anything _alive_ yes :P The issue of Marion is one yet undecided - and I'm not >>>sure that Chinook could have beat him at his best, but we will never know that >>>now though .. however, it is clear that Chinook is the best checkers "player" >>>currently on the planet. That being said, Chinook may be better than every >>>other player, but it didn't demonstrate complete dominance - the top human >>>players can still beat it once in a while :P >>> >>>Hmm, wait a minute.. we haven't asked the wombats.. :P >>> >>> >>>Adrien. >> >>Dr. Tinsley '94 and Chinook '94 were about equal. It's tough to compare Dr. >>Tinsley '57 and Chinook '00 though. >> >>I don't know why you say that the top human players can still beat it once in a >>while. Please cite the game. My understanding is that it hasn't lost a game >>since the last time Tinsley beat it. It has since clobbered both the reigning >>human world checkers champion and the reigning human world correspondence >>checkers champion. We're talking +8 -0 =12 types of scores, and checkers is >>much more drawish than chess. >> >>Dave > >What is the information that you are based on when you say that checkers is much >more drawish than chess. > >Do the best players have more draws in checkers? Yes, by a big margin, too. Even someone as strong as Tinsley would have a long series of draws in W.C. matches. > >I read some years ago that chinook had a lot of draws because of the style of >the machine and that the result was 2:1 and 67 draws if my memory is correct. > >I suspect that one of the reason that chinook could win humans in checkers is >the fact that this game is less popular than chess so humans know it less. You _greatly_ underestimate humans here. Tinsley had to be seen to be believed. He was far more dominating than even Kasparov or Fischer. > >The game of checkers is also more simple than chess(the number of the legal >positions is clearly smaller because the pieces can be only in 50 squares when >in chess there are 64 squares and there are only 2 kind of pieces for every >player). That is a mistake to think. Simpler? maybe in terms of how many moves in a given position. But Tinsley regularly calculated variations 40+ moves deep because of this simplicity. Which means that suddenly things aren't nearly so simple any longer... > >The fact that the game is more simple help the machine to get better result and >I wonder if modified chinook can win 12*12 checkers against the best humans when >every side begins with 30 pieces(in this case I believe that the game is not >more simple than chess). > >Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.