Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:49:59 02/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2001 at 06:36:33, martin fierz wrote:
>On February 08, 2001 at 23:15:34, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>i only read schaeffer's book and even though he admits that at first he thought
>tinsley was afraid, he then puts this thought away as an angry reaction of his,
>following the disappointment. maybe he still thought that tinsley had been
>afraid at the time of writing but didn't want to state it publicly because the
>checkers community would not have taken such a statement very well.
>thanks for the insider information :-)
>
>cheers
> martin
I don't think Tinsley was afraid of anything. However, I do believe that he
was resigned to the fact that the machine _would_ beat him. If not this match
then in the next. He knew what the endgame tables were doing for the program.
I don't think Tinsley thought any human could beat him. I (and many others)
happen to agree. But Chinook was something else entirely. :) He thought
enough of Jonathan and his effort to buck the checker federation and play the
match without their sanction, just so no one would ever be able to say "It is
the world champion, but it couldn't possibly have defeated Tinsley..." Compare
that kind of character with the current world chess champion. What a
difference.
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.