Author: Maurizio De Leo
Date: 03:25:10 08/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
>>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. You definetely have to define simple. Any game that is beyond human solving is complicated in the same way for human. In Othello the best programs are working night and day for solving the game and maybe in the next years they will be able to. But this doesn't make Othello "more simple" than chess : also in othello there will be a world champion and also him will lose some games, as Kasparov or Kramnik. Same for checkers, the drawing rate is high, but humans can't solve the game and it is complicated for them. If you wanted to say "computer simpler", then as long as we talk of "english checkers" you are right. But know that international checkers (the one you call 10*10, but which has different rules) is computationally at the same level of 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. Yes, all this refers to "computationally simple". However reasoning this way, Go should be the most complicated game by a long distance. But for humans Go is the same as chess. >I guess that most of the intelligent people simply choose >chess and not checkers. This statement is just too stupid to need an answer. Reading this I was going to consider you a troll, but then I saw you post a good number of other meaningful messages, so maybe you have just slipped. >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. No, just because of the drawings of the openings there are much more lines to learn. > 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? In international checkers a strong player (one of the first 10) convincigly won against the program Buggy, winning also some games at 5 mins !! Maurizio
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.