Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 14:09:00 05/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2003 at 15:51:13, martin fierz wrote: >On May 21, 2003 at 11:58:55, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On May 21, 2003 at 09:07:24, martin fierz wrote: > >>>connect 4 can be solved on a fast pc in 1 hour. checkers is nowhere near being >> >>Really? I didn't know that. Not by "brute force," i.e., only scoring positions >>as win, lose, or draw. I believe that takes closer to a month. > >dead wrong! my connect 4 program is pure brute force with a large hashtable. 1 >hour on a fast PC is enough for it to solve the game. it has an evaluation >function, but in fact, it also has a search win mode, where the eval is turned >off and it is a pure brute force searcher, that's faster in most cases! some >other programs are even faster, maybe they have more intelligence :-) Wow. I wonder why it's so much faster than my program. How many NPS does it search? I think my program searches 2M NPS on my AXP 2000+. All I do is alpha-beta with a fairly large hash table... >same with chinook. of course it hit the endgame databases right after the >opening book. but that alone means nothing - in checkers, captures are forced, >and so you often encounter lines with mass exchanges. it doesn't mean the game >is solved at all! many lines avoid these exchanges, and then you're on your Right, I never said it was solved. But that's an indication of how much easier checkers is than chess. -Tom
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.