Author: Alain Lyrette
Date: 13:52:25 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 14:51:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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 Checkers is to chess what chess is to go
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.