Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:15:34 02/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2001 at 11:42:12, martin fierz wrote:
>On February 08, 2001 at 09:57:40, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On February 08, 2001 at 06:25:52, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>On February 08, 2001 at 06:17:09, martin fierz wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 08, 2001 at 05:26:40, Uri Blass 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?
>>>>
>>>>there are about a zillion different rules for checkers - a nice overview can be
>>>>found on
>>>>
>>>>http://www.triplejump.net/rules.shtml
>>>>
>>>>>>According to people who have tried, it is a bit harder to
>>>>>>write a strong program
>>>>>>for it than for chess.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that the opposite is truth.
>>>>>I remember that I read that chinook won against the world champion in this game
>>>>>before Deeper blue(I read that the result was 2:1 and 67 draws).
>>>>
>>>>it depends on the variation. the main differences are the board sizes (8x8,
>>>>10x10 and even 12x12), and the rule for kings. in some variations, kings move
>>>>like kings in chess, in others, like queens. of course the queens-variation
>>>>allows many more moves than the kings-variation. if you play a queens-variation
>>>>on a 10x10 board ('international checkers', 20 pieces each) you have *much* more
>>>>complexity than if you play a kings-variation on an 8x8 board (as my program
>>>>does, 'straight checkers'). i think vincent diepeveen's checkers program plays
>>>>international checkers, so he might be able to tell us what the difference in
>>>>branching factor is compared to chess. in straight checkers you get *lots* of
>>>>draws. chinook never really beat the world champion (tinsley) over the board,
>>>>tinsley got ill during the rematch (he won the first match) after six draws and
>>>>forfeited his title. he died shortly after this. chinook then won a match
>>>>against the world number two with a close result.
>>>
>>>If number 1 died then number 2 automatically becomes number 1 so chinook played
>>>against number 1.
>>>
>>>Uri
>>
>>
>>When Tinsley died, Chinook _became_ #1.
>>
>>In fact, it became #1 _before_ Tinsley died as he resigned the match because
>>he was convinced Chinook was better than him at that point in time.
>
>tinsley resigned the match because he was feeling ill. at the time schaeffer
>speculated that tinsley was faking it because he was afraid, but in the hospital
>they diagnosed a cancer. tinsley died shortly afterwards. schaeffer himself
>would not support your statement above, at least, there is nothing like that
>mentioned in 'one jump ahead'
>
>cheers
> martin
I happened to have had the pleasure of knowing him quite well. The
"world checker hall of fame" was located about 5 miles from where I lived
in Hattiesburg Mississippi (it is located in Petal Mississippi). Marion and
I spent many an entertaining afternoon with him playing chess vs either me,
or more commonly, against Cray Blitz.
I talked to him right before the last match and he was pretty sure it was
going to end up with him losing by a narrow margin. I suspect Jonathan knows
the same thing but perhaps didn't say so in his book. Tinsley was not an
egotistical person which means that I trusted his remarks implicitly. If you
knew him, you would _know_ he would not resign a match "just because he felt
ill." No Way. No how.
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.