Author: martin fierz
Date: 18:47:51 08/11/02
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? mine was about 200'000 positions, kingsrow i think about 700'000 and nemesis 1'000'000 - roughly. >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. hmm, too simple for who? and who considers it "too simple"? it is definitely beyond humans, and somehow that is probably all that counts. the human world champion (one of the two...) just lost a match against a computer program which is weaker than all three which played in las vegas with -16+3 and something like 50 draws. the point is not here yet where this happens in chess, but it will happen there too. just because the computer masters the game does not mean it is not interesting for humans.... the rules of checkers are much simpler than those of chess, but to write a strong checkers program is just as challenging as to write a strong chess program. of course, the competition is smaller. >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. less people play checkers than chess in tournaments. part of this is because checkers is played with different rules in nearly every different country. but if you go to MSN gaming zone or yahoo games you will find 1000 people playing checkers at any time. aloha martin
This page took 0.01 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.