Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:59:25 09/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 06:08:08, Côme wrote: >On September 09, 2002 at 04:58:21, Ingo Althofer wrote: > >>Yesterday I found the homepage of Martin Fierz, and on this his interesting >>report on the computer Checkers tournament that had been played in Las Vegas >>some weeks ago. The article is nicely written and worth reading, even for normal >>computer chess enthusiasts. See www.fierz.ch/vegas.htm >> >>However, there is a point where I disagree with the author. In a few remarks - >>and maybe mainly between lines - the reader gets the impression that the author >>has not a very high opinion of Jonathan Schaeffer's work in the Chinook project. >> >>As I saw similar ways of thinking or argumenting in other areas of research let >>me start explaining by an analogy from my own discipline. In mathematics we have >>the expression "there is a right of the first proof". Look at some difficult >>problem (for instance P !=? NP) and assume that someone has proved an answer. >>His proof may be as lengthy or awkward as imaginable - as long as it is >>logically correct, it is a fantastic result and the author deserves full honors. >>Later, other scientists may come and find shorter or more elegant or more >>general proofs. This will not diminish the honors of the first prover. He was >>the one to find the bridge. It is much easier to polish or smoothen an awkward >>proof than to find the proof as a pioneer. Claude Shannon for instance was a man >>of ugly first proofs. When you read through some of his work in information >>theory you can laugh about his (sometimes) awkward ways of argumenting - and >>sometimes third-year students do this. Then I explain the right of the first >>proof and try to encourage them "Come on! Find your own first proofs!" >> >>In top level computer checkers there was such a "come first" situation. During >>the early 90's of the 20-th century Jonathan Schaeffer and his group did a great >>job in tackling the game of checkers. During their enterprise they made several >>mistakes (and Jonathan Schaeffer even was so great to give an honest description >>of these mistakes and woodways in his book "One jump ahead"). But what counts is >>the success: Chinook was the VERY FIRST computer program being superior to all >>human players. > >I don't really agree here, Remember tinsley retired from the match after 6 draws >because he was litteraly dying from cancer ! so chinook draw a dying man :-) >Then he was replaced by Don lafferty and Chinook drew the match ! >Remember Lafferty despite being the second best player in the world he was >really a LOT weaker than tinsley ! I think tinsley rating was +2800 and Lafferty >like 2650 ! >So I do believe a full strenght Tinsley would have kicked chinook badly. >Laffert played hundreds of games with tinsley and he said he only beat him ONCE >and it was very late at night and tinsley was tired :-) I don't agree. I _knew_ Tinsley. He played many checkers matches in Petal Mississippi (at the world checker hall of fame) about 5 miles from my office at the University of Southern Mississippi. Marion also played _many_ games against Cray Blitz (he was an avid chess-player also) including one marathon match where he was _sure_ he could beat it playing the "fried liver". He never won or drew a game. :) He was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that The final Chinook was better than he was, because of the big endgame tables they had constructed. And I thought that chinook beat Lafferty whom I also met several times in Petal. > >Therefore the Chinook team deserves honor still today - and not >>small-minded discussions on the userfriendlyness of a database access code. >> >>And in my mind it is also ok when in the forthcoming title match Chinook as the >>defender will keep its title when the match ends in a draw. Chinook did its job >>years before the others did, and therefore they deserve this advantage. >> >> >>Thanks again to Martin Fierz for his nice report! >> >>Ingo Althofer.
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.