Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 03:03:49 08/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2002 at 03:24:24, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 11, 2002 at 21:47:51, martin fierz wrote: > >>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"? > >I never tried to play checkers seriously but at least >my impression is that the game (if you use 8x8 board) >is clearly simpler than chess. > >I can explain the reasons for that impression. > >1)in chess there are 64 different squares when in checkers >only 32 squares are relevant. > >2)The number of different pieces in chess is bigger than >the number of different pieces in checkers. > >3)The number of legal moves for the side to move is >usually smaller in checkers. > >4)The number of possible positions in checkers is clearly >smaller than the number of possible positions in chess. > >I guess that most of the intelligent people simply choose >chess and not checkers. > >I also understood from your post that the reason for the draws >is the big opening books of the programs and in chess memorizing >opening lines is not so important and even opening like >1.e4 a6 can give practical chances. > >It seems that good memory is more important in checkers when >thinking is more imprtant in chess. Another difference is for checkers there less strategy than chess so in chess, kownledge is a big part of a player's strengh, checkers is mainly tactical, I think. is someone who is clubplayer for the 2 games have an oppinion here ? > > > 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. > >What was the time control of the match? >Can slower time control help humans to get better results? > >Uri
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.