Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:49:28 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 16:53:08, Peter Kappler wrote: >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. >> > >I assume checkers uses a rating system similar (probably the same, actually) to >the one ELO developed for chess. > >What was Tinsley's rating, and how far behind was his nearest competitor? > >--Peter I am not sure. I don't have any docs handy, but it seems to me that he only only lost 2 or 3 games over a 40 year period. I don't believe he ever lost a match over that time-frame. He was simply unbelievable.
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.