Author: Côme
Date: 08:32:56 09/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 08:59:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Ok I guess you are better placed than me since you knew him hehe :-)) btw have you saved some game of chess of Tinsley against cray blitz ? I mean tinsley is a genius, none dominated any game like him from 1950's to 1990's. > > > > >> >>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 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.