Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:33:55 11/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 1999 at 05:10:04, Pekka Karjalainen wrote: >On November 16, 1999 at 23:55:19, Dann Corbit wrote: >>Has the formal solution to checkers put an end to draughts? Just because a >>machine can solve a problem does not mean that the problem is no longer >>interesting. > Is there a formal solution to checkers? I thought the game-tree was just >too big for that. Can you supply a reference, please? http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/Papers/Papers/aimag96.ps They had a goal to complete the endgame database (10^20th positions) for the computer to play perfect checkers. I thought that it has been accomplished, but I was mistaken. They have completed the 8 piece tables and are working on the 9 piece tables: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/databases/databases.html At any rate, it is probably the world's strongest player (but with the paucity of matches, I don't think it is nearly as certain as the sponsors seem to think). Here is an interesting "Scientific American" article on computer games: http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198intelligence/1198ginsberg.html >>I suspect that Tic-Tac-Toe is played by as many children as ever before, >> despite the fact that it is a cat's game from the get-go. > > The fact that almost anyone can learn how to play perfect tic-tac-toe does >mean the game has no scope for professional play. If chess could be solved so >that almost anyone could learn all correct openings and variations by heart >easily, it would affect the game as it is played on the highest levels severely. > > That if is only science fiction, however. Solving the game is far different >from producing a world champ -class player.
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.