Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:38:29 08/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2002 at 06:25:10, Maurizio De Leo wrote: >>>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. I rememeber that I read that there was some years go a match between computer and human in checkers when the computer won 2-1 and 67 draws. I do not expect so many draws in a chess match. > >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 do not think that it is the same level as chess. 10*10 means 50 squares when in chess there are 64 squares. The number of legal moves in 10*10 is still bigger in chess and the number of different pieces is bigger in chess(imagine chess when you have only queens and pawns). I guess that 12*12 board is going to be at similiar complexity to chess(in that case at least there are 72 squares that are more than chess but chess has more different pieces). > >>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. It is not clear. The number of different pieces in go is smaller than chess so in some meaning it is more simple than chess. >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. When I was young I heard from a chess trainer that he considers checkers to be too simple. At that time I got the impression that checkers is not a game that people take seriously and only a game that childs play. I also read in a book of vladimir liberzon about chess that in checker there was a new player who became grandmaster after 2 years of playing when something similiar never happens in chess. <snipped> >In international checkers a strong player (one of the first 10) convincigly won >against the program Buggy, winning also some games at 5 mins !! How much time did people devote to programming international checkers? 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.