Author: José Antônio Fabiano Mendes
Date: 07:38:17 07/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 06:38:41, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 > >Tinsley and Chinook were about equal at 2800, with 150-200 points between them >and anything else. Chinook isn't really active anymore, but it only gets >stronger as new algorithms get implemented and tested at the U of A. > >Over a >40-year span, Tinsley lost 5 games, where that includes all serious >competition, all "friendly" games, all simultaneous exhibitions -- everything. >It's only 3 games if you ignore the non-tournament games, and IIRC, 2 of those >were one-move blunders. Even Capablanca lost more often than that. ;) > >Dave Capablanca lost 36 games in his whole career. [out of 567]
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.