Checkers is a better game than Chess..
Sean
--
New Computer Chess Newsgroup - No ICD/CCC/HYATT Crap
http://www.dejanews.com/group/dejanews.members.rec.sean4611.computer-chess
pc...@del.this.co.uk wrote in message <6uk1ss$d2i$1...@zeus.tcp.net.uk>...
>I just wanted to say that.
>
>Not wanting to start an arguement,
>of course..
>
>:-)
>
>cheers
>
>ade
>
>
>SAGE/DYNAMO checkers WWW site (inc shareware versions)
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol/pcsol.htm
>CHESS GENIUS CHESS homepage
> http://www.computerchess.de/chessgenius/home_e.html
>
>
Komputer Korner
how good it is as long as it is widely played and has a long history.
In that respect the number of Standard deviations of the range of
skill between players should be the final judgement on complexity. 2
years ago someone quoted that GO topped the list at 40 whereas Chess
was in 2nd place at 11 and checkers was 3rd at 10. In chess for the
ELO rating system, the
standard deviation = 200 points which is the point at which the player
rated 200 points higher would win 75% of the time.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
pc...@del.this.co.uk
Rodrigo Andrade
RODRIGO
pc...@del.this.co.uk
>Scientifically the complexity of a game should be a good indicator of
>how good it is as long as it is widely played and has a long history.
>In that respect the number of Standard deviations of the range of
>skill between players should be the final judgement on complexity. 2
>years ago someone quoted that GO topped the list at 40 whereas Chess
>was in 2nd place at 11 and checkers was 3rd at 10.
Was that 10x10 or 8x8?
>In chess for the
>ELO rating system, the
>standard deviation = 200 points which is the point at which the player
>rated 200 points higher would win 75% of the time.
Chess Genius Home Page:
http://www.computerchess.de/chessgenius/home_e.html
BLITZ98 Home Page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol/Pcsol.htm
TCH
just a little too simple for me to enjoy...in chess I can calculate maybe 10
halfmoves ahead (14 forced halfmoves is my record), but in Checkers, even
the poorest chessplayer can see probably 10 moves deep.
TCH
up chess completely after he'd played one game of GO...now that's all he
plays. Personally, if it wasn't for chess my favorite game would be
backgammon, with pente running a close 3rd.
Komputer Korner
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
pc...@del.this.co.uk wrote in message
<6up2hp$s6s$1...@zeus.tcp.net.uk>...
Craig Kinsman
TCH wrote in message <36102...@news.badger1.net>...
Although chess will always be the great love of my life (as far as games go,
anyway) I
would say that Go is its equal in many ways - it has a very strong
positional component and tactics of almost infinite depth and complexity.
There seems to be no limit to the level of skill a master can attain.
I think that any chess player who invested a few hours in learning some of
the basics of Go would enjoy the game immensely.
Draughts seems to have less substance - the world championship matches I
looked at about 20 years ago all seemed to end up 21 draws and 1 win or
similar. There aren't games to equal the Immortal, Evergreen, etc. They all
seemed rather bland.
Craig
sgard...@my-dejanews.com
any strong players. at the world class level, checkers/draughts is as "hard"
as chess.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Nick Wedd
writes
>any strong players. at the world class level, checkers/draughts is as "hard"
>as chess.
If the world's best player (human or machine) were to play a match
against a hypothetical perfect player, what would the results be, in the
two games?
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
pc...@del.this.co.uk
In "english" 8x8 draughts, it would almost definately be a draw.
The first side to move (black) has a strong advantage,
but not a winning one. This is why the 1st 3 moves are
often balloted at top level play.
Probably the same in 10x10.
Anders Thulin
Nick Wedd <Ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
>If the world's best player (human or machine) were to play a match
>against a hypothetical perfect player, what would the results be, in the
>two games?
Two games are too few for any serious evaluation, but +0 =2 -0 doesn't
seem unreasonable.
The closest we can get to test your conditions is probably the WCh
matches:
1992, Marion Tinsley against Chinook. Tinsley won by: +4 =33 -2
1995 it was Lafferty against Chinook: Chinook won +1 =31 -0.
Drawish game, checkers, don't you think? :-)
--
Anders Thulin Anders....@telia.se 013-23 55 32
Telia ProSoft AB, Teknikringen 6, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Nick Wedd
<Anders....@telia.se> writes
>In article <mM5w0SDw...@maproom.demon.co.uk>,
>Nick Wedd <Ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If the world's best player (human or machine) were to play a match
>>against a hypothetical perfect player, what would the results be, in the
>>two games?
> Two games are too few for any serious evaluation, but +0 =2 -0 doesn't
>seem unreasonable.
Sure. By "two", I meant checkers and chess. I was assuming a series of
maybe 24+ games for each.
> The closest we can get to test your conditions is probably the WCh
>matches:
> 1992, Marion Tinsley against Chinook. Tinsley won by: +4 =33 -2
>
> 1995 it was Lafferty against Chinook: Chinook won +1 =31 -0.
But none of these players is perfect. I wasn't asking how Tinsley would
do against Chinook, but how the better of them would do against God.
In Go, for what it's worth:
I believe that God v. Cho Chikun would result in +24 =0 -0
and Cho Chikun (or even a rank amateur like myself) v. Silver Igo (the
current Computer Go champion) would also be +24 =0 -0
> Drawish game, checkers, don't you think? :-)
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Komputer Korner
Chinook were not really the fault of Tinsley. There was some
controversy over those 2 losses if my memory serves correctly. He
lost no more than 10 games in his whole career. There simply never was
any competitor in any field of endeavor that dominated his field the
way that Tinsley dominated checkers/draughts. He understood that game
in a way that no man before or since ever will. Ask Jonathan Schaeffer
how much respect he has for Marion Tinsley. Put it another way. If
Tinsley had been as good at chess as he was at checkers, his rating
would have been way over 3000 ELO.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Nick Wedd wrote in message ...
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner wrote in message ...
>Tinsley was a GOD at checkers.
Korner,
The Go guys are very philosophical, interested in knowledge above all else
(just about) and play thought experiments with each other like crazy. I
mention this because Nick Wedd is a "Go guy".
Quite often their thought experiments yield good results and theories.
One of their sub-components is the idea of God. This represents a perfect
player. So not Tinsley, not Deep Blue, not anything we have or can have, but
an all-knowing God. Even more impossible (if that is possible) to create on
earth for Go than it is for chess.
>The 2 games that he lost against
>Chinook were not really the fault of Tinsley. There was some
>controversy over those 2 losses if my memory serves correctly. He
>lost no more than 10 games in his whole career. There simply never was
>any competitor in any field of endeavor that dominated his field the
>way that Tinsley dominated checkers/draughts. He understood that game
>in a way that no man before or since ever will. Ask Jonathan Schaeffer
>how much respect he has for Marion Tinsley. Put it another way. If
>Tinsley had been as good at chess as he was at checkers, his rating
>would have been way over 3000 ELO.
The Go God idea led them to pose an ELO rating for a Go God (I think). That
was part of the fun thought experiment. What is the upper bound on the
rating scale :) Nick can probably tell us.
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner
game than anyone in history. I can't repeat enough just how good he
was and how perfect his memory was. We will never see the likes of
Marion Tinsley again. I say this because I believe that pollution has
started to deteriorate mankind's intellectual development.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Chris Whittington wrote in message
<907172725.12120.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Nick Wedd
Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes
>The Go God idea led them to pose an ELO rating for a Go God (I think). That
>was part of the fun thought experiment. What is the upper bound on the
>rating scale :) Nick can probably tell us.
I can't tell you. I don't think that anyone can.
But I would bet that God could give Cho Chikun a 2-stone handicap and
still win. I would also bet that God would lose if He gave Cho Chikun a
4-stone handicap. This is my own opinion only. It rates God at around
12-dan on the amateur scale.
For comparison: Cho Chikun is around three stones better than the best
British player; who is around eight stones better than me; who is
around eight stones better than the best current computer program.
I don't know if Marion Tinsley has claimed to know everything worth
knowing about draughts. I do know that the strongest Go players say
things like "I am just beginning to have an understanding of the game".
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner wrote in message ...
>game than anyone in history. I can't repeat enough just how good he
>was and how perfect his memory was. We will never see the likes of
>Marion Tinsley again. I say this because I believe that pollution has
>started to deteriorate mankind's intellectual development.
>
If you want to start a "Save the Whales" off-topic, may I respectfully
request that you take it to the CCC, where they seem to revel in this sort
of stuff.
You could even make accusations about Republican and Democrat whales and
cigars. That should really get them going :)))
Chris Whittington
Chris Whittington
Nick Wedd wrote in message ...
>Whittington <chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>The Go God idea led them to pose an ELO rating for a Go God (I think).
That
>>was part of the fun thought experiment. What is the upper bound on the
>>rating scale :) Nick can probably tell us.
>
>I can't tell you. I don't think that anyone can.
>
>But I would bet that God could give Cho Chikun a 2-stone handicap and
>still win. I would also bet that God would lose if He gave Cho Chikun a
>4-stone handicap. This is my own opinion only. It rates God at around
>12-dan on the amateur scale.
So God doesn't have an infinite ELO score on the scale ? Nice.
Could we play this thought experiment in chess ?
What is the ELO 'worth' of a piece ? And what piece handicap would result in
God losing to, say a 2700 ELO GM ?
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner
pawn. And NICBase stats proved that the difference between a GM and IM
was greater than that advantage. Probably around 50 points for the
advantage of the first move. So if the equation is linear and that is
a big IF, then a pawn would be 300 points.
a piece would be 900 points and a queen 2700 points. Obviously this
isn't correct so the scale isn't linear so you will have to use some
non linear approximation once you have the end points. A starting end
point would be the queen is worth about 900 points and a minor piece
about 400 and maybe reset the pawn = about 200 points. These would
probably also vary depending on the ratings of the players in that a
pawn between an IM and a GM is worth more than a pawn between a 1200
and a 1400 player. Because there is no linear formula either with
straight piece equivalencies nor with rating differences, the answer
will be very hard to pin down without massive experimentation over all
rating levels. Of course computer vs computer will have a different
formula than human vs human or computer vs human.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Chris Whittington wrote in message
<907177499.16961.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner wrote in message ...
>pawn.
Everything mathematical below hinges on this quick-fire statement.
Why is this percentage difference between starting first and not, equal to
1/6 of a pawn ? Or any proportion of a pawn ?
>And NICBase stats proved that the difference between a GM and IM
>was greater than that advantage. Probably around 50 points for the
>advantage of the first move. So if the equation is linear and that is
>a big IF, then a pawn would be 300 points.
>a piece would be 900 points and a queen 2700 points. Obviously this
>isn't correct so the scale isn't linear so you will have to use some
>non linear approximation once you have the end points. A starting end
>point would be the queen is worth about 900 points and a minor piece
>about 400 and maybe reset the pawn = about 200 points. These would
>probably also vary depending on the ratings of the players in that a
>pawn between an IM and a GM is worth more than a pawn between a 1200
>and a 1400 player. Because there is no linear formula either with
>straight piece equivalencies nor with rating differences, the answer
>will be very hard to pin down without massive experimentation over all
>rating levels. Of course computer vs computer will have a different
>formula than human vs human or computer vs human.
>
Of course ? :)
Chris Whittignton
Komputer Korner
relationship would be more linear and there would be a better fit.
However when looking at symmetrical chess programs thinking on the
first move, they all seem to range from around .10 to .20 of a pawn
advantage for white on the first move. There has to be some advantage
or else white would not win 56% of the time. If the advantage was
smaller in terms of a proportion of a pawn then the stats would be
even more skewed, therefore we have to look at how much larger we can
make it and still stay within the margin of error for our end result
of having piece handicap equation fit. It cannot be as large as a
pawn, because we know that being a pawn up scores 90% in GM and
computer stats. So you will argue let us move the advantage of the
first move indicator from my guess of a 1/6 th of a pawn to something
less than 1 pawn. My argument for it being less than 1/3 of a pawn is
that 1/3 of a pawn is 1 tempo because historically a pawn has been =3
tempos, but maybe that is wrong and the exact value needs
investigating. Maybe my table is wrong here but we need
experimentation.
KOMPUTER KORNER ANNOTATION TABLE
The following chart won't improve your chess but it will give you an
idea of what exactly is meant by the annotation symbols that GM's and
chess programs use.
Komputer Korner Annotation Table.
Evaluation symbol % score for white % of a pawn ahead No. of tempos
ahead
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
= or unclear/= 50 .00
0
+/=/= or unclear 56 .16
0.5
+/= 63
.33 1
+/- 76
.67 2
+ - 90
1.0 3
+/-+/- >99 >
1.33 4 or more
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Chris Whittington wrote in message
<907188899.26650.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner wrote in message ...
How can I be right ? I asked you a question. I didn't make any statement.
How can I be 'right' in this context ?
> If the advantage was anything more, then the
>relationship would be more linear and there would be a better fit.
What are you talking about ?
What relationship ?
Better fit with what ?
>However when looking at symmetrical chess programs
No. Not assymetry in it as well :(((((((
>thinking on the
>first move, they all seem to range from around .10 to .20 of a pawn
>advantage for white on the first move. There has to be some advantage
>or else white would not win 56% of the time. If the advantage was
>smaller in terms of a proportion of a pawn then the stats would be
>even more skewed, therefore we have to look at how much larger we can
>make it and still stay within the margin of error for our end result
>of having piece handicap equation fit. It cannot be as large as a
>pawn, because we know that being a pawn up scores 90% in GM and
>computer stats.
"we" know do 'we" ? Where are these stats ? Published someplace ?
>So you will argue let us move the advantage of the
>first move indicator from my guess of a 1/6 th of a pawn to something
>less than 1 pawn.
I wasn't aware that I would argue this. I was asking for your justification
that the first move was worth 1/6 of a pawn.
Looks like your argument boils down to 'because Genius says so if you let it
think on the first move without an opening book'
>My argument for it being less than 1/3 of a pawn is
>that 1/3 of a pawn is 1 tempo because historically a pawn has been =3
>tempos, but maybe that is wrong and the exact value needs
>investigating. Maybe my table is wrong here but we need
>experimentation.
Therefore you present the "maybe wrong table" :))))))
>
>KOMPUTER KORNER ANNOTATION TABLE
>The following chart won't improve your chess but it will give you an
>idea of what exactly is meant by the annotation symbols that GM's and
>chess programs use.
> Komputer Korner Annotation Table.
>Evaluation symbol % score for white % of a pawn ahead No. of tempos
>ahead
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>----------------------------------------------------------
>= or unclear/= 50 .00
>0
>+/=/= or unclear 56 .16
>0.5
>+/= 63
>.33 1
>+/- 76
>.67 2
>+ - 90
>1.0 3
>+/-+/- >99 >
>1.33 4 or more
>
Bollocks. :))))))))))))))
Chris Whittington
Jonathan Schaeffer
>Tinsley was a GOD at checkers. The 2 games that he lost against
>Chinook were not really the fault of Tinsley. There was some
>controversy over those 2 losses if my memory serves correctly.
Your memory serves you incorrectly. He was outplayed and lost
fair and square.
>He lost no more than 10 games in his whole career.
No. From the period 1950-1992 he lost 5 games. He lost 2 games to
Chinook in 1992. He lost many more games in the period before 1951.
Gerrit Zanen
nothing to write? write it somewhere else,
gerrit zanen
Edward D. Collins
> Draughts is for old men and sissies !
On the contrary, draughts (checkers) is a wonderful game, deeper than
most people imagine. Of course, whether it is "better" than chess is
simply left to one's own opinion.
For a few checker problems, which can be enjoyed by those who are not
even fans of the game, visit this URL:
http://www.inficad.com/~ecollins/chckrprobs.htm
| ,::::::<
| ,::/^\"``.
| ,::/, ` 描. Best regards,
| ,::; | '.
| ;::| \___,-. c) ___ __ _
| ;::| \ '-' (_ _/ _ _ _/ / ) / ) //' _
| ;::| \ /__(/((/(// (/ /(_/. (__()((//)_)
| ;::| _.=`\
| `;:|.=` _.=`\ e-mail: ecol...@inficad.com
Komputer Korner
belief to the opposite of the facts. In fact it was Chinook that had a
couple of controversial losses
against Tinsley. One was from copying a bad line in the opening from
an authoritative source and another was from a forfeit because of a
machine deadlock situation. So I guess that in the end Chinook proved
to be Tinsley's equal even though it lost the match -4+2=33. However I
still repeat. Tinsley was a GOD. Losing only 7 games in 42 years
qualifies for GOD status. Jonathan, I think that you owe it to
Marion Tinsley to eulogize him in at least a short sentence or two as
to the merits of the man. Readers of the rgcc don't know anything
about him. I believe that the world will never see his like again.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Jonathan Schaeffer wrote in message
<6v06oe$hre$1...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...
Komputer Korner
proven to hold a linear relationship between pawn material and tempi
and % score, there is still your problem of equating piece material
and ELO points. % score and ELO points are related directly through
the ELO system but measuring them against tempi and or piece values is
a very tricky business indeed. If it is found that both functions are
non linear then integral calculus will be needed to solve the
relationships. However even that will not be the end because there
will be other factors of the ELO scale itself not being constant at
each interval for the equations and the 3 dichotomies of human-human
,comp-comp, and comp-human play. In short a lot of work needs to be
done on this. The Komputer Korner 10 Kommandments was only a
beginning. The above mathematical chess problem is the kornerstone of
the Scientific/Mathematical Fundamental theorem of chess. Until it is
solved, computer chess evaluation of tempi will always be a guess.
My statement of a pawn up being worth 90% score was based on an old
study of doing stats search on games where one side was up a pawn
without compensation according to computers and then calculating the
% score from the results. Not very scientific but then how do we ever
determine whether one side has no compensation for the pawn? Perhaps a
panel of Super GMs that also agree with all the top computers on
certain positions that have no compensation for the pawn and then
calculating the % score of results of games that had these positions
would qualify as scientific, but this seems to be a pipedream just
showing how much chess scientific theory is still in the dark ages.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Chris Whittington wrote in message
<907229700.7348.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Bollocks
Robert Hyatt
: My apologies to Jonathan Schaeffer. Funny how memory can transpose
: belief to the opposite of the facts. In fact it was Chinook that had a
: couple of controversial losses
: against Tinsley. One was from copying a bad line in the opening from
: an authoritative source and another was from a forfeit because of a
: machine deadlock situation. So I guess that in the end Chinook proved
: to be Tinsley's equal even though it lost the match -4+2=33. However I
: still repeat. Tinsley was a GOD. Losing only 7 games in 42 years
: qualifies for GOD status. Jonathan, I think that you owe it to
: Marion Tinsley to eulogize him in at least a short sentence or two as
: to the merits of the man. Readers of the rgcc don't know anything
: about him. I believe that the world will never see his like again.
: --
: --
I met him several times, as the "World Checker Hall of Fame" is about
5 miles from the University of Southern Mississippi, where I was on the
faculty before moving to UAB. I've told the story of him and Charles
Walker driving out to USM one Saturday afternoon, after calling me and
asking me to meet them there. They (mainly Tinsly) spent the afternoon
trying to prove that the "Fried Liver attack" (e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5
d5 Nxf7 etc) was sound, by playing it against Cray Blitz over and over.
He *never* did win a game with that. :)
Lot of fun to talk to him however, as he wasn't a bad chess player
either...
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Chris Whittington
Komputer Korner wrote in message ...
>Even if my table is
>proven to hold a linear relationship between pawn material and tempi
>and % score, there is still your problem of equating piece material
>and ELO points. % score and ELO points are related directly through
>the ELO system but measuring them against tempi and or piece values is
>a very tricky business indeed.
Hence the question asking you to justify your assertion that the start move
is worth 1/6 of a pawn.
> If it is found that both functions are
>non linear then integral calculus will be needed to solve the
>relationships.
Sounds good. But essentially meaningless.
>However even that will not be the end because there
>will be other factors of the ELO scale itself not being constant at
>each interval for the equations and the 3 dichotomies of human-human
>,comp-comp, and comp-human play.
Beware of sudden outbreak of flying caveats :))
>In short a lot of work needs to be
>done on this. The Komputer Korner 10 Kommandments was only a
>beginning. The above mathematical chess problem is the kornerstone of
>the Scientific/Mathematical Fundamental theorem of chess.
Korner, you are nuts.
>Until it is
>solved, computer chess evaluation of tempi will always be a guess.
Ah, so 1/6 of a pawn was entirely random. Why not say that in the first
place ?
>My statement of a pawn up being worth 90% score was based on an old
>study of doing stats search on games where one side was up a pawn
>without compensation according to computers and then calculating the
>% score from the results.
What does "one side was up a pawn without compensation according to
computers" mean ?
Up a pawn means what ? Got a pawn extra and not about to lose it back ? Or
any position with an extra pawn without being concerned for any tactics
afterwards.
Without compensation ? According to computers ? So you mean that one side is
up a pawn and the computer score after search says +1.00 ?
And when did this 'up a pawn happen' ? Middlegame, endgame, opening ?
Because the remaining game space will be significant for the final result,
no ?
And where are these positions ? How many ? Who chose them ? How long was the
'computers' given to rate them as +1.00 ? Which computers ? Did these
computers have any positional understanding of 'compensation' ? Did you
consider that the side that had already lost a pawn might be weaker/under
pressure and destined to lose via that mechanism anyway ? Where is this 'old
study' ?
>Not very scientific
I am beginning to think that KK did the study :)) Is this right ?
>but then how do we ever
>determine whether one side has no compensation for the pawn? Perhaps a
>panel of Super GMs that also agree with all the top computers on
>certain positions that have no compensation for the pawn
Your belief in 'computers' is touching.
>and then
>calculating the % score of results of games that had these positions
>would qualify as scientific, but this seems to be a pipedream just
>showing how much chess scientific theory is still in the dark ages.
If you wanted to get the stats, I don't see why you don't just propose
autoplaying programs with one side having a random minor piece removed. Or
even a random pawn if development advantage effects were somehow excluded. A
suitable maniac could probably even hack the auto232 system to send a
'change board' and 'remove piece on f1/g1/c1/b1' command at the start of a
new game.
Then the bean-counters could leave their proggys overnight for a few weeks
and have a new fascination to talk about :))) Piece down SSDF rating lists.
How about that ?
Chris Whittington
>--
>--
>Komputer Korner
>The inkompetent komputer
>
>To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
>kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
>Chris Whittington wrote in message
><907229700.7348.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Bollocks
>
>
>
>
TCH
per side, as opposed by 16 in chess...for another, those pieces can only
move on one color (!) one move at a time....All the checkers pieces move the
same way, but in chess there a 7 different ways for pieces to move (Rooks,
Queens, Kings, white and black bishops, knights and pawns). Chess is vastly
more complex than checkers...the mathematical possibilities bear it out.
I have little doubt that a "worldclass" checkers player would hammer me
in checkers...this Tinsley guy you checkers people are talkin' about must've
been a pretty good player (I guess...never heard of him before this!). As
far as playing world class checkers players, well, I'll play anybody who
wants to play me in Yahoo. Just drop me a line in this newsgroup if you
wanna play.
pc...@del.this.co.uk
>In article <mM5w0SDw...@maproom.demon.co.uk>,
>Nick Wedd <Ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
>>If the world's best player (human or machine) were to play a match
>>against a hypothetical perfect player, what would the results be, in the
>>two games?
> Two games are too few for any serious evaluation, but +0 =2 -0 doesn't
>seem unreasonable.
> The closest we can get to test your conditions is probably the WCh
>matches:
> 1992, Marion Tinsley against Chinook. Tinsley won by: +4 =33 -2
> 1995 it was Lafferty against Chinook: Chinook won +1 =31 -0.
> Drawish game, checkers, don't you think? :-)
Depends whos playing. I think when these players
met Chinook, they naturally tended to keep on the
"safe" side. Other former World Champions like
Oldbury had different score sheets - they were
more attacking in style.
A much debated point at that time.
Anders Thulin
Nick Wedd <Ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
>But none of these players is perfect. I wasn't asking how Tinsley would
>do against Chinook, but how the better of them would do against God.
I did not claim they were perfect -- I just observed that the
closest we could get was these players.
I understand, on the best authority, that despite all rumours to the
contrary God plays only dice.
Robert Hyatt
: In article <L2gbqcEU...@maproom.demon.co.uk>,
: Nick Wedd <Ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
:>But none of these players is perfect. I wasn't asking how Tinsley would
:>do against Chinook, but how the better of them would do against God.
: I did not claim they were perfect -- I just observed that the
: closest we could get was these players.
: I understand, on the best authority, that despite all rumours to the
: contrary God plays only dice.
Yes, but he knows how the dice will stop before he rolls them... remember
the joke about golf...
God, moses, and a lowly earty resident play a round of golf...
The "mortal" tees off first, and watches his tee shot hit the
water hazard about 200 yards out and <kerplunk>...
Moses tees off next. His tee shot is low and headed for the water, when
he raises his staff, the water parts, and the shot bounces on toward the
green.
God tees off last, and hits a vicious slice into the woods off to the
right. It hits a tree, bounces into a hole, where a groundhog pops out
with the ball in his mouth and spits it out. An eagle drops down, picks
it up, and flies over the green and drops the ball where it rolls slowly
into the cup.
The mortal looks at Moses and God and says "alright, are we going to play
golf, or are you guys going to fool around like this all day?"
So even rolling dice in that domain won't cut it.. :)
: --
: Anders Thulin Anders....@telia.se 013-23 55 32
: Telia ProSoft AB, Teknikringen 6, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
--
Jonathan Schaeffer
>Jonathan, I think that you owe it to Marion Tinsley to eulogize him in at
>least a short sentence or two as to the merits of the man.
If you want to know what I think about him, read my book "One Jump Ahead"
(http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/OJA/oja.html)
Jonathan Schaeffer
>Anders....@telia.se (Anders Thulin) wrote:
>>In article <mM5w0SDw...@maproom.demon.co.uk>,
>>Nick Wedd <Ni...@maproom.co.uk> wrote:
>> The closest we can get to test your conditions is probably the WCh
>>matches:
>> 1992, Marion Tinsley against Chinook. Tinsley won by: +4 =33 -2
>> 1995 it was Lafferty against Chinook: Chinook won +1 =31 -0.
>> Drawish game, checkers, don't you think? :-)
Only if you want it to be. In checkers, the top players are more
interested in not losing than in winning. Hence, the high percent of
draws. When I asked Tinsley if he wanted to win a match 9-1 or 1-0,
he replied 1-0. A loss, any loss, would be too painful.
Against Tinsley, one had to play perfectly. Hence Chinook was programmed
to minimize risk. The result, unfortunately, was drawish checkers. After
the Tinsley and Lafferty matches, I removed the constraints that forced
the program to play cautiously - our winning percentage immediaetly shot up.
Komputer Korner
"One of the great achievements of this book is that it portrays Marion
Tinsley as the greatest checkers player who ever lived. Maybe even the
greatest player of any game, ever. Schaeffer's admiration for Tinsley
is formidable, and very infectious. He never passes up on an
opportunity to praise him, both as a human being:"[...] a sportsman
and a gentleman in the truest sense of the word", as a checkers
player: "I am watching a great man in action, and all I feel is
tremendous awe and respect for him". Tinsley's record as a player is
unbelievable: In the 45 (!!) years that Schaeffer calls his 'peak
years', Tinsley lost only 5 (!!) games out of the thousands of games
that he played. There is no equivalent achievement in any other game
or sport. It is as close to perfection as humanly possible (the title
of Chapter 8). Analyzing a huge database of games that Tinsley played
in the past, CHINOOK found a few instances where he may have made an
error. As it turns out, the program did not calculate deep enough to
see that there was no error: Tinsley was right. If you have never
heard of Marion Tinsley, this book will convince that he truly was the
greatest player the game has ever seen.
Thus a win against Tinsley is very, very rare. Most of his human
opponents would be more than happy with a draw, and that attitude has
spoiled much of the fun for him. With no one willing to take a little
risk (which is generally what you have to do to try and win a game)
the arrival on the scene of a fearless computer was a very welcome and
refreshing experience for Tinsley. "I feel like a teenager again" (the
title of Chapter 10) said the 63-year old Tinsley after playing
CHINOOK for the first time. The program is not impressed or
intimidated by it opponent, but the programmer is. Schaeffer behaved
just like a human checkers player when he celebrated its drawing
Tinsley as a victory: "We did it!!! Four draws against the reigning
World Champion!". that was in August, 1990. It would be another two
years (almost to the day) before the computer's evaluation leaps up on
move 21 of the eighth game that CHINOOK and Tinsley are playing for
the World Championship: "That's it! A gigantic score of 286 means that
CHINOOK is winning everything in sight [...] we're going to win. Win!
Win! Win!". The enthusiasm jumps of the page, and grabs you by the
throat. Two years, amounting to 130 pages in the book, separate these
two milestones, and the reader has been privy to most of Schaeffer's
ups and downs in the meantime. At this point in the story, Schaeffer
has really convinced the reader what a phenomenal accomplishment it is
to have CHINOOK be only the fourth player in over 40 years to win a
game against Tinsley"
Remember that even Chinook lost the match against Tinsley -4+2-33
The next match was called off after 4 draws when Tinsley fell ill and
eventually died from this illness. I repeat. The world will never see
the like of Marion Tinsley again.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Jonathan Schaeffer wrote in message
<6v2oov$rke$1...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>...
Komputer Korner
The value of a piece changes as the move number increases. I got the
1/6 of a pawn =advantage of first move by having many computer
programs think on the first move without opening book. This was not a
random guess. Judging by the complexity of evaluation functions, most
computer programs score at the first node should be pretty accurate.
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Chris Whittington wrote in message
<907319391.14595.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Hence the question asking you to justify your assertion that the
start move
>is worth 1/6 of a pawn.
>
>> If it is found that both functions are
>>non linear then integral calculus will be needed to solve the
>>relationships.
>
bruce moreland
<kor...@netcom.ca> wrote:
>My apologies to Jonathan Schaeffer. Funny how memory can transpose
>belief to the opposite of the facts. In fact it was Chinook that had a
>couple of controversial losses
>against Tinsley. One was from copying a bad line in the opening from
>an authoritative source and another was from a forfeit because of a
>machine deadlock situation. So I guess that in the end Chinook proved
>to be Tinsley's equal even though it lost the match -4+2=33. However I
>still repeat. Tinsley was a GOD. Losing only 7 games in 42 years
>qualifies for GOD status. Jonathan, I think that you owe it to
>Marion Tinsley to eulogize him in at least a short sentence or two as
>to the merits of the man. Readers of the rgcc don't know anything
>about him. I believe that the world will never see his like again.
>--
Schaeffer wrote a whole book about this subject, and a large part of
it is about Marion Tinsley. He also wrote a blurb in here when
Tinsley died, which you may still be able to find in DejaNews.
It is obvious that Schaeffer has great respect for Tinsley.
I think your comments are very insensitive.
bruce
Ernst A. Heinz
> Komputer Korner wrote:
> [...]
>
> It is obvious that Schaeffer has great respect for Tinsley.
>
> I think your comments are very insensitive.
I totally agree with you, Bruce.
But what do you expect from an inherently buggy ``komputer''?
Human sensitivity?
=Ernst=
pc...@del.this.co.uk
>How can it be as "hard" as chess? For one thing, there are only 12 pieces
"Better" and "Hard" are not necessarily the same thing..
Or why dont you try my shareware BLITZ98 program,
if you think checkers is such an easy game.. :-)
pc...@del.this.co.uk
>"Komputer Korner" <kor...@netcom.ca> writes:
>>Tinsley was a GOD at checkers. The 2 games that he lost against
>>Chinook were not really the fault of Tinsley. There was some
>>controversy over those 2 losses if my memory serves correctly.
>Your memory serves you incorrectly. He was outplayed and lost
>fair and square.
>>He lost no more than 10 games in his whole career.
>No. From the period 1950-1992 he lost 5 games. He lost 2 games to
>Chinook in 1992. He lost many more games in the period before 1951.
I remember meeting him and you at that '92 competition,
jon. I remember at the time I spoke with Derek Oldbury
often too - him and Tinsley had a bit of a rivalry
over those 42 years - Oldbury claimed that
Tinsley avoided his challenges. Oldbury was one of
the few players to take a game off Tinsley - in their early
Championship challenge in the 50's - and since that time
they only play 2 games in (I think) 76 - they were draws,
though Derek said he had an won position in one
of the games.
Various attempts to arrange a rematch between them
failed, and it was only after Tinsley had passed away
that Oldbury took the World Title he had wanted for
so long. This (and the fact that Derek was unbeaten
English Checkers champion from 1955 up to his death)
was an amazing feat for someone wheel-chair bound
from birth - in fact his life story is very interesting..
I wonder what the outcome of a re- match would have
been? I think technically Tinsley was the "sounder" player
- Derek was inclined to try and "engineer" wins by taking
risks - but that is not the only factor - as chess players know..
Psychologically, I think Tinsley found Oldbury to be
a very disturbing player to play - which is perhaps
why he ducked out of Dereks challenges..
As to Checkers being a "drawish" game - a lot depends
on the style of approach. In the Oldbury-King freestyle
match challenge in Barbados, there were plenty of
wins & losses - (5 each at least, from memory) -
and that was *freestyle*, not balloted!
cheers
adrian
Komputer Korner
wasn't meaning to be insensitive. I was just trying to let many rgcc
people know that Tinsley was that good. I first met Jonathan Schaeffer
in 1984 and over the years had many conversations with him. I know
that he had tremendous respect for Marion Tinsley but not having
known either about his book or what he had written about Tinsley in
rgcc, I was just being a reporter type who was trying to get one last
word from Jonathan about Marion Tinsley. Most rgcc people don't know
just how good he was .
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
bruce moreland wrote in message
<3617fe26....@news.seanet.com>...
>It is obvious that Schaeffer has great respect for Tinsley.
>
>I think your comments are very insensitive.
>
>bruce
>
>
Rolf Tueschen
>I never saw the blurb. My apologies for not knowing about this. I
>wasn't meaning to be insensitive. I was just trying to let many rgcc
>people know that Tinsley was that good. I first met Jonathan Schaeffer
>in 1984 and over the years had many conversations with him. I know
>that he had tremendous respect for Marion Tinsley but not having
>known either about his book or what he had written about Tinsley in
>rgcc, I was just being a reporter type who was trying to get one last
>word from Jonathan about Marion Tinsley. Most rgcc people don't know
>just how good he was .
I want to state a few things just in passing by. To keep the subject well
in the on-topics of rgcc. :)
I want to thank our often komputer-like friend KK. And doing this I want to
oppose those who wanted to earn some cheap points by reminding us of the
more silicone tissue of KK ...
That is not the problem. The real big one lies here.
What makes me suspicious and also angry in people like J. Schaeffer and F.
Hsu likewise, that is a sort of impostordom in their appearances. And
negligence in front of human genius. I agree with KK, I also wanted to read
from Schaeffer's pen more about his feelings as a human being about another
human being who was a real genius. Folks, *not* insinuating Schaeffer had
never done that before. That's not my point. I mean we're here on usenet,
with an often changing population. Here we've to repeat certain truths from
time to time. To get the record sstraight. We're definetly *not* a
universitary seminary. Where it's a proof for smartness to always remember
the once said and published theories. I think Bob Hyatt has a different
approach. He's also a creator of a champion program. But he also speaks
about the human / carbon side. Often with respect.
Also among the chess programmers I observed a kind of dizzyness as far as
the superiority of the human spirit is concerned. A kind of schizophrenia
that confused the value of a machine-based result and that one of a human
being.
Perhaps a picture helps.
We know that smart guys have created automobiles that are almost as fast as
man can run. Cars in particular run even faster than man.
Now, what would it be useful for if the often very unsportive human creator
of that machine, often very fat e.g., tried to even dare to compare or
fantasize himself next to the god-like human champ?
That's a schizophrenic situation.
May I remind you all of the triviality that a car could never be called or
judged as "the champion" in athletics? How could we even think of the
stupidity to compare the fast car on his wheels and the running human
being?
*Of course* we want to know what on Earth is the fastest entity. As far as
that question is interesting you, you might instantly forget about the
horsecrap of the *car*. In the air machines reach multitudes of that speed.
So, from a man of science, I would expect a bit more of clarity and
respect. In the human sphere the human champ has no competition to fear.
What I understood of what I could read here about this Mr. Tinsley, that is
his almost machine-like superiority as a human checkers-player. His clas is
even greater than that of Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer together.
Mr. Schaeffer is just a clever engineer. A smart Prof., but I don't know
his record. From what I could read here I couldn't see any kind of
judgement or feelings he had for Tinsley.
That reminds me of the completely over the edge Hsu in May 1997.
To be precisesly on the point. Hsu seemed to have forgotten, excuse me,
I've read all about the money and therefore direction IBM could define,
about the simple fact that a comparison between a machine and a human champ
could always only be a sort of experiment but *not* a serious and fair
competition. *By definition!* Just for the show we could want to see what
happened in a direct confrontation between man and machine. But then we
should concentrate on the strength of the machine alone. And we should
*not* start a confusion of the human champ. As it happened in New York.
Ok, Schaeffer might have proved that he's really smart and also saw all
that long before I entered that field. But please, he should inform us
about it if he appeared to write here on usenet and gave other also well
known corrections ...
Summary:
A machine might be objectively "better/faster/cheaper" than the human
champ.
But we should nevertheless call the human champ the champ. Because it's a
trivial truth that a machine is living in a different world.
Scientists want to do experiments for their theories. But a real
competition between machine and man makes no sense.
More so if we're interested in a artificial weakening of the human side.
Scientists should seek clarity and should *not* support cheats and myst, no
matter how much money could be made. And contracts can't neutralize
scientifical standards. Not to speak of human dignity ...
Jonathan Schaeffer
>Various attempts to arrange a rematch between them
>failed, and it was only after Tinsley had passed away
>that Oldbury took the World Title he had wanted for
>so long. This (and the fact that Derek was unbeaten
>English Checkers champion from 1955 up to his death)
>was an amazing feat for someone wheel-chair bound
>from birth - in fact his life story is very interesting..
Derek was quite bitter; he felt that Tinsley avoided playing him. There
appears to be some truth in Derek's claim, but I am uncertain as to why
there should be. Certainly, Marion did not have to fear playing Derek.
It seems that there was some personal animosity between the two.
>I wonder what the outcome of a re- match would have
>been? I think technically Tinsley was the "sounder" player
>- Derek was inclined to try and "engineer" wins by taking
>risks - but that is not the only factor - as chess players know..
Tinsley... by a lot. The match would have been close until Derek
lost a game or two, and then he would likely take risks that would
backfire.
Robert Hyatt
: pc...@del.this.co.uk writes:
I never understood this either. I once spent about a half-day with
Charles Walker, Derek and Marion at the Petal WCHOF (an amazing
facility privately built by Walker). And it was quite apparent that
the two didn't get along well. They never sat down together, when we
would have conversations, one was always doing "something else" and
so forth. I never had a chance to ask Charles what was going on, but
he did caution me once to try to balance conversations between them and
not suggest a "group" thing of any sort...
Rodrigo Andrade
THERE YOU GO!!!! Welcome to the club pal!!! Backgammon is the BEST game in
the WORLD!!!!!!
RODRIGO
pc...@del.this.co.uk
>pc...@del.this.co.uk writes:
>>Various attempts to arrange a rematch between them
>>failed, and it was only after Tinsley had passed away
>>that Oldbury took the World Title he had wanted for
>>so long. This (and the fact that Derek was unbeaten
>>English Checkers champion from 1955 up to his death)
>>was an amazing feat for someone wheel-chair bound
>>from birth - in fact his life story is very interesting..
>Derek was quite bitter; he felt that Tinsley avoided playing him. There
>appears to be some truth in Derek's claim, but I am uncertain as to why
>there should be. Certainly, Marion did not have to fear playing Derek.
>It seems that there was some personal animosity between the two.
They were pretty much opposites as people - Tinsley was
a man of God, Derek was an Athiest, Derek was
physically handicapped, and so on.
Yet they were both "gentlemen", always polite and
well behaved, even toward each other.
>>I wonder what the outcome of a re- match would have
>>been? I think technically Tinsley was the "sounder" player
>>- Derek was inclined to try and "engineer" wins by taking
>>risks - but that is not the only factor - as chess players know..
>Tinsley... by a lot. The match would have been close until Derek
>lost a game or two, and then he would likely take risks that would
>backfire.
Im not so sure - if the match had been in the 60/70's with
Derek at his peak. And psychology is important too
- as I have said, it seems Derek disturbed Tinsley,
and this could have mattered. Have a look at Chess World
Championships - ie Anand/Kasparov - no-one really forsaw
Anands sudden collapse half way through.
I think the physical aspect seemed to effect Derek -
he tired more easily than able-bodied people
do, so often he would start a match very strong, then
fade off.
Its all another "what if", I suppose..
cheers
ade
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻齯滌`偕中滌`偕爻,虜
To learn more about the Amalgam safety issue (or lack of) visit:-
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol
(Includes FAQ & more links..)
PLEASE NOTE - "REPLY TO" on this message may be incorrect
to discourage junk mail. EMAIL replys to :
pcsol AT tcp DOT co DOT uk
dott...@ualberta.cax
>
>What makes me suspicious and also angry in people like J. Schaeffer and F.
>Hsu likewise, that is a sort of impostordom in their appearances. And
>negligence in front of human genius. I agree with KK, I also wanted to read
>from Schaeffer's pen more about his feelings as a human being about another
>human being who was a real genius.
You should buy Jonathan's book. There are few if any words in it about Tinsley that
are anything but flattering, and most tend more towards the reverent side. Its
really a great book.
>Scientists should seek clarity and should *not* support cheats and myst, no
>matter how much money could be made. And contracts can't neutralize
>scientifical standards. Not to speak of human dignity ...
I dont believe that Jonathan was ever part of some large corporation that was
attempting to gain publicity by defeating a world champion (unlike Deep Blue and
IBM). I do believe that Jonathan was a scientist who got caught up in the
competitive spirit once he realized that it would actually be possible to make a
program that could play competitively with the World Champion. If you've ever seen
Jonathan play chess, its not hard to imagine!! (:
However, in my mind, its a big difference between wanting to win for the sake of
winning, and wanting to win for the sake of using the publicity of defeating the
World Champion to make profit. The former treats the game as the end, whereas the
latter treats the game as a means to an end.
--
*********************************************************************
David Ottosen
dott...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dottosen
*********************************************************************
Eran
Backgammon is not necessarily better than chess. I tried backgammon
before and it was a bit boring. So I still want to play chess for it
is the one of the most exciting games :)
pc...@del.this.co.uk
>I never understood this either. I once spent about a half-day with
>Charles Walker, Derek and Marion at the Petal WCHOF (an amazing
>facility privately built by Walker). And it was quite apparent that
>the two didn't get along well. They never sat down together, when we
>would have conversations, one was always doing "something else" and
>so forth. I never had a chance to ask Charles what was going on, but
>he did caution me once to try to balance conversations between them and
>not suggest a "group" thing of any sort...
Can you remember what year that was?
Another thing of course is that I believe
both were quite headstrong characters
- probably a necessary charicteristic of
any World Champion.
I also remember from my phone conversations
how Derek hated the modern style of "playing
for draws" - he felt it killed the excitement of
the game, and put new people off joining the
sport. Extended from this came his distaste for
3-move ballot. The only way to master the game
at 3 move was to learn reams of "standard" play
by heart - very off-putting to the newcomer.
(Some of his views can be gleaned by reading
"Move Over" free on the Web, see link on my
page).
Regardless of the technicalities I can understand
where Derek comes from on this issue - and
indeed at the time I suggested an idea he liked
- a 4 (or 5 or 6..) move "freestyle" selected-ballot.
It works like this..
The first game is played free-style - each player
playing what he thinks best. Then in the next game,
with colours reversed, each player *must* follow
the first 4 moves from the first game. So what does
this mean? Well, if one player wants to "mix it up",
in the 1st game he can - he could make quite a
dangerous move in those first 4 moves, safe in the
knowledge that his opponent *must* play that move
himself in the next game! But also, the element of
control is retained - the very irritating randomness
of "ballotted" openings is removed - in fact the
players have the freedom to play the games *they*
want to play, not ones forced by the "roll of a dice"..
I suppose some rules need to be added - for a start
some 4 move combinations must be deemed non-
playable - ie. absolute dead-cert losses or lines
that are too weak - played just to cadge a 1-0-1 score..
Also, games need to be in groups of 4, so that even
numbers of "controlling" wht/blk game pairs are played
by each player.
Anyway, I remember Derek liked this idea - but
unfortunately the world of checkers seems too
committed to the played out 3 move ballot concept
to change..
cheers
ade
Rolf Tueschen
>You should buy Jonathan's book. There are few if any words in it about Tinsley that
>are anything but flattering, and most tend more towards the reverent side. Its
>really a great book.
I know, that the fact of not knowing that book yet goes on the negative
side of my record. Let me just confirm you of my thanks for your reply in
that style. Because I understand usenet this way that I can publish as
honest as possible my actual thoughts and feelings too. If then I missed
something or even was wrong all over the medium allows immediate
correction. If it was a medium where we all could only write if we had
passed a sort of check-up concerning the completeness of our knowledge or
even worse concerning the awe of someone special or great of name or
reputation, we had no longer the fresh air of usenet. My somewhat
one-sided, perhaps a little bit "nasty" attempt gets his full meaning in
union with replies like yours. Again, if I had tried to consider also your
side, then the publications of several books, I even don't know the name
of, then usenet would be dead. Or still in other words. My posts try to
inspire a communication and ask for addings. Advocatus diaboli. So, I'm
often dissapointed that exactly "scientists" take my letters as an offense.
They at least should be able to understand all "that". You have proven this
with the friendly calmness of your reaction.
>I dont believe that Jonathan was ever part of some large corporation that was
>attempting to gain publicity by defeating a world champion (unlike Deep Blue and
>IBM). I do believe that Jonathan was a scientist who got caught up in the
>competitive spirit once he realized that it would actually be possible to make a
>program that could play competitively with the World Champion.
I think I did never imply his involvement comparable to that of Hsu and
team. And honestly *my* informations would not allow to even guess
something negative in that process you called "getting caught up". Note
that I was (I know that's a it complicated) mainly referring to those who
wanted to attack KK for his innocent plea of something still lacking from
J. Schaeffer.
>However, in my mind, its a big difference between wanting to win for the sake of
>winning, and wanting to win for the sake of using the publicity of defeating the
>World Champion to make profit.
In that style I never before could read what really happened with Kasparov.
>The former treats the game as the end, whereas the
>latter treats the game as a means to an end.
Ok. But it wouldn't be me if I didn't want to find a new aspect. This one
is itself a reaction on a post I just read from the UK about Tinsley and
his British concurrent, a physically handicapped. He had pointed out the
psychological factor over a longer match. And what could happen if once the
balance could be broken. It's my opinion that if in checkers, and I don't
know much about it, the factor is most important that you might become
involved in the need to take too much risk/ seeking for initiatives, that
then a machine could be stronger *if* the human operator/ creator tunes it
down to a long ranged coolness, a state of waiting that the human might
become gradually and slightly uncautious, whatever that might mean in
*checkers*. Even then we didn't have a machine that could play like a
champion because the psychology came from the smart operator ...
Am I far away of what happened in that deadly fight where Tinsley died
before the fight was over?
For those who may assume that that is all off-topic it might be good to
explain that I think that also in the Deep Blue case, the 97 event was
mainly leaden by the aspect of the human interference. At first by the
nightly twistings and then by the offense and complete breakdown of
friendly relationsship. The first destroyed any chances to become adapted
to style in three games with each colour. The latter caught Kasparov in
sort of irritating double bind that was even more desastruous for him
because he had enough to do with the fact that each of his emotional
reactions were transmitted into the whole world. Think of Bobby Fischer who
was unable to play with a hidden camera behind a curtain. The knowledge of
*alone* got him confused and almost led to the implosion of the whole
event. In 1972 however Bobby had the arbiter L. Schmid as sort of friendly
"human" authority.
Fortunately I had a real life interruption just now and I had to close. :)
Robert Hyatt
: Robert Hyatt <hy...@crafty.cis.uab.edu> wrote:
:>I never understood this either. I once spent about a half-day with
:>Charles Walker, Derek and Marion at the Petal WCHOF (an amazing
:>facility privately built by Walker). And it was quite apparent that
:>the two didn't get along well. They never sat down together, when we
:>would have conversations, one was always doing "something else" and
:>so forth. I never had a chance to ask Charles what was going on, but
:>he did caution me once to try to balance conversations between them and
:>not suggest a "group" thing of any sort...
: Can you remember what year that was?
Not precisely... It was after we had "cray blitz". And probably after
1983. Charles gave us money a couple of times to help with trips to
participate in tournaments, like the New York trip in 1983, so some
time around that "window" within 1-2 years probably...
Komputer Korner
utmost respect for the now deceased Marion Tinsley. He always had.
Read his book to find out. All I was trying to do was to elicit some
more commentary from him as to just how good that he thought Marion
was. His comments when Marion died were before my time and most others
on rgcc. Schaeffer deserves our admiration for the amount of skilled
work that he put into the Chinook project, not unfounded criticism
from you. Everybody realizes that machines are not as important as
human beings. All the programmers certainly do. Rolf, please read
Schaeffer's book before commenting further on Jonathan Schaeffer.
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/OJA/oja.html
--
--
Komputer Korner
The inkompetent komputer
To send email take the 1 out of my address. My email address is
kor...@netcom.ca but take the 1 out before sending the email.
Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6v516g$ae1$1...@news00.btx.dtag.de>...
Rolf Tueschen
>Rolf, You are now being insensitive.
>Komputer Korner
>The inkompetent komputer
Hehe. Now we debate with a komputer about sensitivity. Hehe.
But seriously KK, you seem to suffer from a kind jet-lag, because I wrote
in the meantime another post to a fellow countryman of yours.
You're not wrong if you understood my comment a bit one-sidedly. But I
didn't mean it this way. You must read my (smart) postings on several
levels. Multi-mime-format so to speak (for a komputer).
I have a somewhat long proboscis. That means I can go really deep and drink
honey where others are still only breathing. You get the idea. Such is
nature.
BTW, I have no coronet, so you might still adress me with a small letter in
"you". Man, I'm just Your Pope, so what. :)
(Alan, if you knew me, you would be surprised. Why do you have so little
instinct?)
TCH
thought the game was boring that 1)you weren't using the doubling cube and
2) you didn't have any money on line.....backgammon is one of the single
greatest games for gambling that I've ever played. Play it for a dime a
point...funny how it adds up!
Eran wrote in message <36178fe7...@news.earthlink.net>...
TCH
Les Ungerleider
leads to more positions faster then chess, but has less total
positions (due to different moves of pieces). Backgammon, like
poker and rummy must be played for a meaningful stake to be non
boring, chess like bridge or crossword puzzles can be played for
the challenge alone.
The above does not mean one is better or worse, they appeal to
different challenges. As you learn both, it is like peeling an
onion, there are layers within layers, and until you master one,
you don't even know the others exist.
I'm just inside the skin of the chess onion, and a few layers
deeper in the backgammon one.
--
Les Ungerleider (also at SLU@pupik"DOT"com)
The Internet is a haystack full of needles...
The above comments reflect only my views and does not commit
my employer, my wife or my dog to any positions or actions.
Craig Kinsman
Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6v8lpv$tlv$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
>dott...@ualberta.caX wrote:
> Think of Bobby Fischer who
>was unable to play with a hidden camera behind a curtain. The knowledge of
>*alone* got him confused and almost led to the implosion of the whole
>event. In 1972 however Bobby had the arbiter L. Schmid as sort of friendly
>"human" authority.
>
The way I remember it is that Bobby agreed to an UNOBTRUSIVE TV camera
presence. What the media morons provided was an enclosed pyramid large
enough for the camera and operator.This was sitting on the stage near the
players. Due to lack of ventilation the human operator had to be swapped at
least every hour, with obvious disruption to concentration. It seemed to me
at the time that Fischer had every right to complain.
Cheers,
Craig.
The Guru
<Les.Ung...@boeing.com> wrote:
>positions (due to different moves of pieces). Backgammon, like
>poker and rummy must be played for a meaningful stake to be non
>boring, chess like bridge or crossword puzzles can be played for
>the challenge alone.
>
I'd have to disagree with this.
The reason backgammon attracts gambling and chess does not has little
to do with the 'boringness' of the game. It simply that backgammon
has a strong random element to it which allows a weak player to beat a
strong player. Only a fool would back himself to beat a better chess
player. But with backgammon there's always the chance the dice will
go your way and you will win.
The same principal applies to casino games. Everyone knows the games
are rigged so you will lose. But there's always a chance you will
have a lucky streak and beat the odds.
era...@popup.ipop
>Backgammon is statistical, while chess is deterministic.
No, Chess is hardly deterministic, although I agree that 95% of
endgames are subject to exact calculation, and hence 'deterministic'
rings accord.
But moves in the middle game are always subject to 'error' in the
statistical sense if anything. For example ...NxP in some variation
may appear to lead to a promissing position, but result in a losing
endgame for the 'supposed' winner at the time NxP was played.
Deterministic?! Probabilistic (or statistical) if anything.
DJWhitfill
Just a general comment-I think both games are great in their own right. And if
you like western chess and backgammon, I think you'll also enjoy XiangQi-a very
interesting game.
XiangQi and western chess developed in parallel from common origins. If you
ever played Feudal you'll prbably like XiangQi. XiangQi literature is lot more
difficult to come by as there isn't a lot of money to be made translating
Chinese manuscripts, but there are a few good books out there.
This is a slight departure from computer chess topics, but my experience with
XiangQi has strictly been from playing computer programs.
J Rowlinson
game. I played the owner of the hotel where I was staying (who I was told is
a very very good player) and I managed to win 2 out of 4 games.
I am a very poor Backgammon player but I had incredible luck with the dice
which is how I won.
All the luck in the world wont help you win at Chess, the better man will
always win.
I my opinion Backgammon is just a posh version of Ludo with little or no
skill involved.
All the best.
Krapsparov.
Rodrigo Andrade wrote in message <6v6nbt$a5h$1...@news4.wt.net>...
Edward D. Collins
> luck with the dice which is how I won. All the luck in
> the world wont help you win at Chess, the better man will
> always win.
> I my opinion Backgammon is just a posh version of Ludo
> with little or no skill involved.
I love hearing comments like that last one. It's comments and attitudes
and beliefs like that, that help to MAKE backgammon such a wonderful
game! Many people simply belief that because dice are involved,
backgammon contains a large element of chance, or "luck." Nothing could
be further from the truth.
I can recall thinking that way myself many years ago, before I became a
student of the game. There is so much more to backgammon than most
people realize that it's almost comical.
I have played numerous games with friends, relatives, etc., who knew
little more than how the pieces moved and the rules of the game. (In
fact, now that I think about it, I don't think I know anyone personally
who has actually picked up a backgammon book and studied the game.)
Against these players I win nearly every match I play. Literally. Not
every game, mind you, but nearly every 7 point or even a 5 point match.
Because of this I've been told how "lucky" I am. LOL! Luck has little
to do with it. If there were "little or no skill involved" as J.
Rowlinson states, then I should only be winning about half of these
games.
Actually the opposite of his statement is closer to the truth. With
backgammon, there is "little or no LUCK involved!!!"
But then again, any true backgammon player knows this already...
Note that backgammon is not a better game than chess, nor is it any
worse. "Better" is simply a matter of personal opinion. Both games are
so different it's like comparing apples and oranges anyway.
Best regards,
| ___ __ _
| ,::::::< (_ _/ _ _ _/ / ) / ) //' _
| ,::/^\"``. /__(/((/(// (/ /(_/. (__()((//)_)
| ,::/, ` 描.
| ,::; | '. e-mail: ecol...@inficad.com
| ;::| \___,-. c)
| ;::| \ '-'
| ;::| \
| ;::| _.=`\ Ed's Backgammon, Checkers, and Chess Page
| `;:|.=` _.=`\
| '|_.=` __\ http://www.inficad.com/~ecollins/games.htm
michael adams
>
> Rolf Tueschen wrote in message <6v8lpv$tlv$1...@news01.btx.dtag.de>...
> >dott...@ualberta.caX wrote:
>
> >was unable to play with a hidden camera behind a curtain. The knowledge of
> >*alone* got him confused and almost led to the implosion of the whole
> >event. In 1972 however Bobby had the arbiter L. Schmid as sort of friendly
> >"human" authority.
> >
> presence. What the media morons provided was an enclosed pyramid large
> enough for the camera and operator.This was sitting on the stage near the
> players. Due to lack of ventilation the human operator had to be swapped at
> least every hour, with obvious disruption to concentration. It seemed to me
> at the time that Fischer had every right to complain.
>
> Cheers,
> Craig.
time i thought it had more to do with the style of chair supplied.
'gards micky.
J Rowlinson
Nobody is doubting Tinsleys ability he was the best player to have lived but
the game itself is flawed.
At compitition level the first three moves are made by ballot to ensure that
every game is not a draw. This would never happen in chess
TCH
>always win.
>I my opinion Backgammon is just a posh version of Ludo with little or no
>skill involved.
I disagree....I've seen people get incredibly lucky at the chessboard. I
consider it luck if a player, just through sheer dumb luck, can make 5 or 6
excellent moves in a row, although he/she doesn't understand the
implications of the moves. I played a move in a game against a strong expert
about a year ago, and he resigned immediately. I asked him why he resigned,
and he stomped out of the club in disgust! I finally found the "point" of my
move, but the thing is that I didn't understand the strength of the move,
and merely got lucky by playing it. I have little doubt I'd have lost if the
expert had played the game out. But, I believe luck plays a very small role
in chess, nothing more.
Playing Backgammon well requires great skill...luck, of course, plays a
small part in the game. Anytime you use dice or cards there is some luck
involved. But I could tell by your description of your match vs the
innkeeper that you weren't using a doubling cube (for shame!), hence you
weren't really playing backgammon..you only thought you were. And what the
hell is Ludo?
J Rowlinson
It signifies that Backgammon is a pure gambling game where you don't know
what the outcome will be for example, if you think you are winning you
double the dice and give it to your opponent, he then assesses his position
and takes a gamble on weather he can win or not. He can do this because
there is a dice involved and anything can change with one throw so its
always worth carrying on.
How many people put money on the Kasparov V Short match?. Not many because
the best player will always win,unlike Backgammon.
Ludo is a kids game
TCH wrote in message <361e7...@news.badger1.net>...
pc...@del.this.co.uk
>>All the luck in the world wont help you win at Chess, the better man will
>>always win.
>>I my opinion Backgammon is just a posh version of Ludo with little or no
>>skill involved.
The result of one or 2 games could be luck, but
over a series the winner will be the most skilled.
pc...@del.this.co.uk
Gerard de Groot
advantage, not in draughts!
pc...@del.this.co.uk schreef in artikel <6vqdk4$m44$4...@zeus.tcp.net.uk>...
J Rowlinson
When I was playing the weekend Chess congresses there was a Dutch guy who
used to play 10x10 Draughts and was a grandmaster at it in Holland. He
wouldn't touch 8x8 with a barge pole as it was a forgone conclusion that
unless your first three moves where picked at random via ballot it would be
a draw every time, he also stated that in time 10x10 would go the same way.
I will not comment on 10x10 as I have never played the game but I have had
experience in 8x8 when I competed in the Lancashire Championships a few
years ago.
I love playing Draughts so I hate to call it, but 8x8 is defiantly flawed.
Jon
Gerard de Groot wrote in message
<01bdf618$c0adb720$2fac9ec2@gerard-de-groot>...
Al Lyman
Checkers is very difficult. That all games will result in draw, unless you
play 3-mv is ridiculous.
If you start 11-15 (the best move on the board) against a master player or
top expert, and "think" you will draw every game, you got a surprise coming,
as do I or anyone else. 3-move.
1st black moves.
2nd-white moves.
Now-Black moves what the deck dictated. It is black that is immediately thrown
into a difficult opening, even critical, even very critical, caused by the 3rd
move, that ordinarrily he would not play.
No onw with any sense of survival, would start 9-13 (the worst move on the
board) and allow 22-18 (the center controlling move by white) and then go
6-9, terribly disrupting the double corner, and moving everything towards the
side of the board. Without study of the defenses, you will probably never
survive this opening.
Not to mention the Skullcracker, Octopus (!) Double Cross, etc.
If you think 11-15 will result in all draws, go play online at Gamezone or
Vog, and try 11-15, to see if yiou have any lossses after say 50 games.
Tinsley tried both chess and checkers, and opted for checkers as the game he
thought he could play best. He became a Grandmaster.
Irving Chernev did the same, but opted for Chess, and became a Grandmaster.
Chernev, then wrote about his 1st love (checkers) in 1982. "The complete
Ency. of Draughts." He explained that the game was to difficult, for him to
become a grandmaster, so chose Chess. That does apply to everyone. Just
because there are more possible moves in chess, or Int'l Draughts (10x10)
simply means it's looking across an ocean, and checkers is like looking down
a well. In neither case can "we" see the bottom, or solution.
The same intense study is necessary to become an expert, master or
grandmaster, in all these games, and neither one is "more" difficult. For you
, nor I, will master one of them in a lifetime. Go to my site, and load the
problem database, and see if you can sight solve "any" of the positions, not
to mention hundreds of thousands more, then understanding will replace
general opinions about the game and it's difficulty.
You, who are a novice at he game, is not qualified, to make these statements.
At Chess, or 10x10 Draughts, I am a novice, and I know they are elegant and
difficult games. I know the same thing about checkers. In a lifetime of
pursuit, playing any style, or moving where you want, or restricted play, you
will never solve it's mysteries. Nor anyone else. AL Lyman
ACF Checker Site: http://www.primenet.com/~krow/
All about checkers. Games database and problem database. Load them and click
"Next Move" to "watch" the game or solution. Much info. Books and supplies.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
pc...@del.this.co.uk
>For sure it will never happen in 10x10 draughts. In chess white has a small
>advantage, not in draughts!
In 8x8 checkers, the first side to move (black) has the advantage.
In 10x10, we are informed no such advantage exists for
the first side. In chess the first side has the advantage.
Anyone know why this might be?
ade
Charles Milton Ling
Master at Chess.
Al Lyman wrote:
> In article <36238...@news1.mcmail.com>,
> "J Rowlinson" <news...@mcmail.com> wrote:
> > I will have to take your word for it.
> > When I was playing the weekend Chess congresses there was a Dutch guy who
> > used to play 10x10 Draughts and was a grandmaster at it in Holland. He
> > wouldn't touch 8x8 with a barge pole as it was a forgone conclusion that
> > unless your first three moves where picked at random via ballot it would be
> > a draw every time, he also stated that in time 10x10 would go the same way.
> > I will not comment on 10x10 as I have never played the game but I have had
> > experience in 8x8 when I competed in the Lancashire Championships a few
> > years ago.
> > I love playing Draughts so I hate to call it, but 8x8 is defiantly flawed.
> > Jon
> >
> > Gerard de Groot wrote in message
> > <01bdf618$c0adb720$2fac9ec2@gerard-de-groot>...
> > >For sure it will never happen in 10x10 draughts. In chess white has a small
> > >advantage, not in draughts!
> > >
> > >
J Rowlinson
explain to me why the three move rule exists.
This rule was invented because better players than me or you will draw every
game without it.
And for your information, I find it very hard to lose to anyone on the
internet no matter what I play, because the average player is very poor as
you well know.
Jon
Murray Cash
any game where 2 players choose to follow a predefined path of play to a
draw and that to me is boring, uninspirational, non-progressive,
negative play that will kill the game forever.
But take a game where one player or both take risks,,,explore new
avenues, and open up new worlds of discovery. Now that is how the game
should be played.
With any game, as the knowledge increases, the amount left to be
discovered diminishes. But the question remains, how much else is there
to know? I can assure you unballoted 8x8 checkers has a whole lot more
to be explored and discovered yet, for those pioneers brave and intrepid
enough to wander away from the safe waters of the harbour into
unchartered territory.
There is a lot more to come.
Murray Cash
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
murray.cash_AT_thenemesis.demon.co.uk
Replace _AT_ with @
Visit the Nexus website at
http://members.aol.com/murraycash/nexus.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article <36238...@news1.mcmail.com>, J Rowlinson
<news...@mcmail.com> writes
>I will have to take your word for it.
>When I was playing the weekend Chess congresses there was a Dutch guy who
>used to play 10x10 Draughts and was a grandmaster at it in Holland. He
>wouldn't touch 8x8 with a barge pole as it was a forgone conclusion that
>unless your first three moves where picked at random via ballot it would be
>a draw every time, he also stated that in time 10x10 would go the same way.
>I will not comment on 10x10 as I have never played the game but I have had
>experience in 8x8 when I competed in the Lancashire Championships a few
>years ago.
>I love playing Draughts so I hate to call it, but 8x8 is defiantly flawed.
>Jon
>
>
>
>Gerard de Groot wrote in message
><01bdf618$c0adb720$2fac9ec2@gerard-de-groot>...
>>For sure it will never happen in 10x10 draughts. In chess white has a small
>>advantage, not in draughts!
>>
>>
>>pc...@del.this.co.uk schreef in artikel <6vqdk4$m44$4...@zeus.tcp.net.uk>...
>>> "J Rowlinson" <news...@mcmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Nobody is doubting Tinsleys ability he was the best player to have lived
>>but
>>> >the game itself is flawed.
>>> >At compitition level the first three moves are made by ballot to ensure
>>that
>>> >every game is not a draw. This would never happen in chess
>>>
>>> Dont bet on it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
J Rowlinson
Me again.
Sorry Murray but it is not my supposition that is in question, this rule was
invented for one reason and one reason only, that is to give one player an
uneven bias.
I would love to agree that both players take risks but the game has been
analysed to such an extent that Grandmasters know how to draw every game
rather than lose.
This is why the rule exists, I didn't make it up, there are no new avenues,
no undiscovered worlds of discovery.
At our level I agree with you and Al Lyman because none of us have canvassed
the game to Grandmaster level and ballot moves make little difference. But
it is not our ability thats in question, its the game itself.
Jon.
Nick Wedd
<news...@mcmail.com> writes
>Sorry Murray but it is not my supposition that is in question, this rule was
It's not the game itself that is in question, it is the ability of the
very strongest players to avoid losing at it.
Draughts, and Chess, and Go, are all broken in the sense that a perfect
being would comprehend the full move tree instantaneously, and find no
interest in the game. Of course no such beings exist.
Draughts is, arguably, broken in the sense that some real beings know
enough about the game that they can avoid losing. One factor
contributing to this is that draws are quite likely: so the "not lose"
target is a relatively broad one.
One way of addressing this problem is to force the stronger players
into regions of the game that they do not know about, by the 3-move
ballot. Another is to urge them to play for a win instead of taking
refuge in safe lines.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Al Lyman
without a loss. Several in some cases. The winner also had a loss or 2. (1 I
think) GAYP of course menad they played 11-15 if they chose, without 3-move
restriction.
1st, GAYP was the style. That lead to so many repetitiove games, that
something had to be done. Players would play the Glasgow, or Lassie etc every
time, and matches, match books etc were dull and un-interesting. So, enter
2-move. At least that made you play, and know, 9-13, 9-14, 10-14, 10-15,
11-15, 11-16, and 12-16 openings. Ther wsa something like 52 or 54 openings.
2-mv champ Robert Stewart, (Scotland) would not defend the title. Since 1922
he had not defended. In the meantime , 3mv was being discussed, it being much
the harder, making Black commit a very weak or critical move at the 3rd mv.
In 1934 the 1st -3move championship of the world took place. Asa Long Defeated
Newell Banks and became the 3-move Champ. The United States, therefore did not
need Mr. Stewart to defend.
Sionce it is more difficult, then it became the "recognized" way to play, and
the United States held the title. I suspect that encouraged the decision to
switch to 3-mv.
The 2-mv title became extinct, almost overnight.
3-move IS NOT all the ACF plays. Every other year the Nat. Ty is GAYP, and
the ACF also recognized 11-man ballot, where one man on each side is balloted
off the board and each side now has 11- men. Tha balloted pc changes with the
draw of the card.
Under no circumstances will all games result in draws at GAYP and never has,
In 1991 or 1992, GAYP World Champ Derek Oldbury led Ron King 5-1 at one
point. King won 4 straight! the match ended a 5-5 tie. In 3-mv KIng defended
his title agains Don Lafferty in 1995, tha match ending in a 5-5 tie with 30
draws. Identicle to GAYP.
So much for "all games will be a draw."
Ther never has been, and never will be a checkers player that good, because it
don't matter what the stle is, you still have to "put-em" on the right square.
Otherwise you become "weak" or in a loss.
Bobby Fischer has proposed for chess, to "random" set the back row pcs, to
start every game. Probably, by draw of a card, to "defeat" prepared lines and
the computer databases. In the 1981 Nat. Ty, Don Lafferty adopted 24-20 as
his defense against 11-15, and won the ty. He never lost a game with
24-20-"The Aryshire Lassie." He played it everytime against 11-15.
With prudent study it should be possible for anyone to do. That is the reason
for 3-mv, and 150 or so openings that may come out of the deck, and FORCE well
rounded knowledge.
I am not saying it is best for checkers, only offering these reasons for it's
existance.
Being a novice is ok-all of us have are, or have been.
Golf will show you that you will "bogey" a hole, or worse!
Checkers will show that you will "bogey" it too, and lose games, and their are
no exceptions.
That is human frailty in all of us. There is no such thaing as an "easy" line,
although many are "tame" in comparison, because out of 7 moves available, even
if you don't know whcih one is best, all 7 may draw!
In the harder lines, maybe you have the luxury of 2 or 3 that will draw. In
the critical ones, usually 1!! AL Lyman
Peter Coleman
determine which piece you could move in Chess you'd like it better. You're
going soft, Rod.
Rodrigo Andrade wrote in message <6v6nbt$a5h$1...@news4.wt.net>...
>
The Guru
What you've written below proves only that you don't know how to play
backgammon. Try posting this to rec.games.backgammon and you will be
laughed at.
When you are competent at both chess and backgammon (as many people
are) you may then make a sensible comparison. Otherwise you'll
continue to appear ignorant as you have below.
J Rowlinson
Rather than come on and slag me off, try answering this question.
Why have a dice if not to inject luck into a child's game?
For your information I have been playing Backgammon for years and quite
frankly it bores me shitless.
The Guru wrote in message <36287ece...@news.uq.edu.au>...
Nick Wedd
<news...@mcmail.com> writes
>I have been playing Backgammon for years and quite
>frankly it bores me shitless.
Then I wonder why you don't stop.
Gerrit Zanen
For weeks now I see the topic: BACKGAMMON is a better game than Chess.
Please will anyone in this newsgroup only post draughts related articles.
It is already hard enough to understand the differences between the versions
of draughts and checkers etc. Chess, go, backgammon and other games are well
covered in other newsgroups.
So please STOP this not draughts related postings.
Gerrir Zanen
Nick Wedd heeft geschreven in bericht ...
J Rowlinson
Nick Wedd wrote in message ...
Edward D. Collins
>> The doubling dice proves my point. It signifies that
>> Backgammon is a pure gambling game where you don't know what
>> the outcome will be for example, if you think you are winning you
>> double the dice and give it to your opponent, he then assesses
>> his position and takes a gamble on weather he can win or not. He
>> can do this because there is a dice involved and anything can
>> change with one throw so its always worth carrying on. How many
>> people put money on the Kasparov V Short match? Not many because
>> the best player will always win, unlike Backgammon.
The Guru wrote replied:
> What you've written proves only that you don't know
> how to play backgammon. Try posting this to
> rec.games.backgammon and you will be laughed at.
I agree. Just that tiny piece that J. Rowlinson wrote proves beyond a
shadow of a doubt that he doesn't understand the game at all.
"He can do this because there is a dice involved and
anything can change with one throw so its always worth
carrying on."
Never before have I read a sentence which completely proves a total lack
of knowledge of a given subject.
j...@my-dejanews.com
game.
In article <6v6nbt$a5h$1...@news4.wt.net>,
"Rodrigo Andrade" <candrade@_R_E_M_O_V_E_wt.net> wrote:
> >backgammon, with pente running a close 3rd.
>
> THERE YOU GO!!!! Welcome to the club pal!!! Backgammon is the BEST game in
> the WORLD!!!!!!
>
> RODRIGO
Edward D. Collins
> That is, if you like luck rather than skill determining
> the outcome of the game.
No. "Luck" averages out... in the long run everyone gets the same "good
luck" and "bad luck." If luck alone determined the outcome of a
backgammon game, then everyone would, on the average win half of the
total games that they played and lose half of the total games that they
played.
This, of course, isn't true at all. A good backgammon player will win
far many more games/matches against a poor backgammon player, "bad luck"
and all, than the other way around.
There are 36 ways that two dice can be thrown. In a nutshell, a
backgammon expert will base his decision for each move that he makes and
place his checkers (men) around the board in a manner to give himself as
few bad rolls on his next turn as possible. A backgammon novice does
not think ahead and knows little about dice, the laws of probability,
etc.
Roulette is luck.
Bingo is luck
Slot machines are luck.
Any state lottery is luck.
But backgammon is a combination of luck and skill with much more skill
than probably anyone who reads this post will ever realize.
Backgammon, of course, is not a better game than chess, nor is it any
worse.
- Ed
"Luck is a mystical illusion which does not exist in reality."
- from the book Poker: A Guaranteed Income For Life.
"There is no such thing as luck."
- Obi Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)
Rodrigo Andrade
> - from the book Poker: A Guaranteed Income For Life.
>
>"There is no such thing as luck."
> - Obi Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)
My favorite quote regarding luck is:
"Luck is for losers."
- Bruce Becker, backgammon author
RODRIGO
Dennis Ward
Rolf Tueschen wrote:
> dott...@ualberta.caX wrote:
>
> >You should buy Jonathan's book. There are few if any words in it about Tinsley that
> >are anything but flattering, and most tend more towards the reverent side. Its
> >really a great book.
>
> I know, that the fact of not knowing that book yet goes on the negative
> side of my record. Let me just confirm you of my thanks for your reply in
> that style. Because I understand usenet this way that I can publish as
> honest as possible my actual thoughts and feelings too. If then I missed
> something or even was wrong all over the medium allows immediate
> correction. If it was a medium where we all could only write if we had
> passed a sort of check-up concerning the completeness of our knowledge or
> even worse concerning the awe of someone special or great of name or
> reputation, we had no longer the fresh air of usenet. My somewhat
> one-sided, perhaps a little bit "nasty" attempt gets his full meaning in
> union with replies like yours. Again, if I had tried to consider also your
> side, then the publications of several books, I even don't know the name
> of, then usenet would be dead. Or still in other words. My posts try to
> inspire a communication and ask for addings. Advocatus diaboli. So, I'm
> often dissapointed that exactly "scientists" take my letters as an offense.
> They at least should be able to understand all "that". You have proven this
> with the friendly calmness of your reaction.
>
> >I dont believe that Jonathan was ever part of some large corporation that was
> >attempting to gain publicity by defeating a world champion (unlike Deep Blue and
> >IBM). I do believe that Jonathan was a scientist who got caught up in the
> >competitive spirit once he realized that it would actually be possible to make a
> >program that could play competitively with the World Champion.
>
> I think I did never imply his involvement comparable to that of Hsu and
> team. And honestly *my* informations would not allow to even guess
> something negative in that process you called "getting caught up". Note
> that I was (I know that's a it complicated) mainly referring to those who
> wanted to attack KK for his innocent plea of something still lacking from
> J. Schaeffer.
>
> >However, in my mind, its a big difference between wanting to win for the sake of
> >winning, and wanting to win for the sake of using the publicity of defeating the
> >World Champion to make profit.
>
> In that style I never before could read what really happened with Kasparov.
>
> >The former treats the game as the end, whereas the
> >latter treats the game as a means to an end.
>
> Ok. But it wouldn't be me if I didn't want to find a new aspect. This one
> is itself a reaction on a post I just read from the UK about Tinsley and
> his British concurrent, a physically handicapped. He had pointed out the
> psychological factor over a longer match. And what could happen if once the
> balance could be broken. It's my opinion that if in checkers, and I don't
> know much about it, the factor is most important that you might become
> involved in the need to take too much risk/ seeking for initiatives, that
> then a machine could be stronger *if* the human operator/ creator tunes it
> down to a long ranged coolness, a state of waiting that the human might
> become gradually and slightly uncautious, whatever that might mean in
> *checkers*. Even then we didn't have a machine that could play like a
> champion because the psychology came from the smart operator ...
>
> Am I far away of what happened in that deadly fight where Tinsley died
> before the fight was over?
>
> For those who may assume that that is all off-topic it might be good to
> explain that I think that also in the Deep Blue case, the 97 event was
> mainly leaden by the aspect of the human interference. At first by the
> nightly twistings and then by the offense and complete breakdown of
> friendly relationsship. The first destroyed any chances to become adapted
> to style in three games with each colour. The latter caught Kasparov in
> sort of irritating double bind that was even more desastruous for him
> because he had enough to do with the fact that each of his emotional
> reactions were transmitted into the whole world. Think of Bobby Fischer who
> was unable to play with a hidden camera behind a curtain. The knowledge of
> *alone* got him confused and almost led to the implosion of the whole
> event. In 1972 however Bobby had the arbiter L. Schmid as sort of friendly
> "human" authority.
>
> Fortunately I had a real life interruption just now and I had to close. :)
>
>
> >--
> >*********************************************************************
>
> >David Ottosen
> >dott...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
> >http://www.ualberta.ca/~dottosen
>
> >*********************************************************************