Author: Mark Rawlings
Date: 07:57:45 11/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 1999 at 02:26:28, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On November 17, 1999 at 14:33:55, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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 > >He's not building the rest of the 9-piece tables, AFAIK. He is looking at >solving the game, though. We (the GAMES group) think that the CS department's >big iron is big enough to do it with. > I would think the 9-piece tablebases (and probably the 10-piece...) would be necessary to solve the game. Mark >>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). > >It doesn't play much because nothing comes close to it. It has crushed humans >in world championship play and world correspondence championship play since >Tinsley left us. > >Also, checkers != draughts. > >Dave
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.