From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 15:06:37 MDT
Mr Noe Dubrovsky wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net>
>Date: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:47 am
>Subject: Re: the brains in bahrain think mainly of hussein
>
>
>
>
>>I seem to remember from back in the 1960's that there was a
>>program that
>>played an unbeateable game of checkers. ...
>>
>I don't think your story is quite correct there. The Samuel's checkers
>program of the '50s was impressive because it learnt its evaluation
>function while playing itself. It did play some US state champion and
>did quite well, but is not "generally regarded" to have been a brilliant
>checkers program. Chinook, otoh, is a giant man-thrashing beast.
>
You could be right. I last followed that decades ago, so memories are a
bit fuzzy.
> Chess is more difficult to program, but even so most commercial
>...
>
>ram. The algorithms involved are
>almost identical. It might be more tedious due to chess's quirky rules
>and trickier evaluation, but pretty much identical tricks are used. The
>difference is that chess has a much bigger state space so search
>algorithms don't get as deep in the time allocated. Go has a much
>bigger state space still.
>
>alejandro
>
A larger state space means that brute force is less successful, so you
need to be subtler. So it is harder to do it well.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:42 MST