Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:30:18 09/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 09, 2002 at 11:32:56, Côme wrote: >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. > No, no games saved at all. Tinsley estimated himself to be in the 2000-2200 Elo range, and the games were not interesting enough to do anything with. I did have them in my big Cray Blitz archive, but all of that went bye-bye in 1996. I had game scores, but no log files, that is... >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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.