Author: martin fierz
Date: 05:27:21 02/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2001 at 06:30:14, Tony Werten wrote: >On February 08, 2001 at 04:24:11, David Blackman wrote: > >>On February 07, 2001 at 16:41:28, Tanya Deborah wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Hi! >>> >>>I am playing a new match in checkers between the 2 strongest Spanish checkers >>>programs of the world... >> >>Just curious, is "Spanish checkers" the same game as "Polish Draughts", >>"International Draughts", "Damen" etc? > >She could have meant 2 spanish programs playing polish checkers :) > >I think it's true for the other coutries as well, but the game played in Holland >is international draughts. >> >>http://www.multimania.com/nic55/dames/dames2.htm >> >>They say it is played in >>"most French-speaking countries (France, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, and the >>African continent) and also in the Netherlands, and in the ex-soviet union >>countries." > >If I remember correctly, in the SU they let the children start with checkers to >get some ideas about the tactics, before switching to draughts. > >> >>This is the game on the 10x10 board. >> >>According to people who have tried, it is a bit harder to write a strong program >>for it than for chess. Perhaps it should be the next big board-game programming >>challenge, now that chess programs are more or less in reach of the top human >>players, and Go still seems much too hard. > >Depends on what you call difficult. In checkers ( and draught ) there seems to >be no additional strength from searching deeper anymore, only from better >evaluation. Which is a bit harder to achieve. It also means that a faster >computer doesn't give you a stronger computer automaticly. this is not true. i performed some self-play experiments with my computer checkers program, i used a version searching to a fixed depth n to play another version searching to depth n-2, in 282 game-matches with the results depth win% 5-3 78.9% (+196=53-33) 7-5 72.0% (+153=100-29) 9-7 77.5% (+181=75-26) 11-9 65.8% (+130=111-41) 13-11 68.1% (+134=116-32) 15-13 66.3% (+119=136-27) 17-15 60.8% (+89=165-28) 19-17 58.9% (+78=176-28) 21-19 54.8% (+60=189-33) yes, these are diminishing returns for deeper searches, but no, it is not true that searching deeper doesnt help. i also tried taking out some very important knowledge from the eval of the deeper searching program, expecting the shallower program to beat it from some search depth on - which was not the case. the result for the deeper program did get worse, but it always won. the statistical errors on the above numbers are about 2%, so 78.9+-2.0%. there was a chinook paper once, which reported diminishing returns too, but that only had 20-game matches i think and huge error margins - too large to claim anything. cheers martin
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.