Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 23:40:45 08/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2002 at 01:19:21, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 10, 2002 at 21:38:57, martin fierz wrote: > >>On August 10, 2002 at 13:13:56, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 10, 2002 at 12:30:26, martin fierz wrote: >>> >>>>On August 09, 2002 at 06:11:01, David Dory wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 08, 2002 at 16:43:55, martin fierz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>i think schaeffer wrote something about how unlikely it was that an EGTB error >>>>>>would have turned up in his match against tinsley (they had bugs in 1992, but >>>>>>they thought they had none in 1996 - but they had some there, too). well, it >>>>>>seems it turned up here! we're not 100% certain yet, there's another guy in >>>>>>england using schaeffers database, if he also gets that error with his lookup >>>>>>code it's definitely the chinook database. >>>>>> >>>>>>aloha >>>>>> martin >>>>> >>>>>Those damn EGTB's have been hexed for Jonathan. He mentions in his book "One >>>>>Jump Ahead", how they found errors in them, again and again. Much to team >>>>>Chinook's dismay. >>>>> >>>>>I thought after the last EGTB errors that every one of the files had been >>>>>"proofed", 100% accurate. Very interesting, if the error is in Chinook's files. >>>> >>>>schaeffer sent me an email saying the EGTB was correct. which leaves a corrupt >>>>file on ed's harddisk as one possible cause, or an error in his access code as >>>>the other possibility for what happened. we don't know yet and until he has a >>>>chance of checking this back home, i can't tell you what really happened. >>>> >>>> >>>>>After running thru a game on your web site, I'm POSITIVE I won't be playing >>>>>checkers with you guys! Wow! Your programs are GOOD! >>>>> >>>>>Great web site, and best wishes for a great tournament, Martin. >>>>> >>>>>Dave >>>> >>>>thanks :-) >>>> >>>>aloha >>>> martin >>> >>>I suspect that this checker 8*8 game is practically solved and programs only >>>need hardware that is slightly faster to get 100% draws instead of more than 90% >>>draws. >> >>i think you suspect wrong. the reason for the high number of draws is that we >>have close-to-perfect opening books, which take our programs until positions >>where they will play perfectly thanks to the 8-piece EGTB. without those books, >>there would have been many more decisive games - even on much faster hardware. > > >What is the size of books? > >I would expect small books when you consider the fact that almost nobody is >interested in playing that game seriously because it is considered to be too >simple. > >The only game of checkers that I saw a tournament in it is 10*10 and even in >that game I think that the number of people who are interested in it is small >relative to chess. > >Uri information : http://www.acfcheckers.com/newbusines.html : WHAT IS HARDER-CHESS OR CHECKERS (personally I think chess is 100 times more interresting, may be it's a matter of taste :) ) http://www.acfcheckers.com/origin.html
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.