"jefk" <kec@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:01ca338f-4ef8-43c7-b80c-d4d27d242446@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 29, 4:56 pm, pauldepst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure Bob realised 1.e4 is probably a draw. Bob was conducting a
>> thought
>>experiment which _assumes_ e4 is a win so your reply misses the point.
>
> >>well i'm aware the discussion/thread was about checkers,
>>> and in the latest postings about specific openings used, or
>>> left out by Schaeffer in his billion numbers database crunching.
]>>> but from what i've read in some articles (June 2007) it's
>>> believed that these openings are irrelevant so they
>>> really think checkers is solved, ie a draw.
That's a practical, not absolute, solution. We were talking about working
out EVERY combination for every opening, and how the solved openings can
be
avoided by force of rule, leaving the unsolved remainder for tournaments.
The point was that it's possible for a GAME to be solved but for rules to
be
enacted that change the game to something not solved.
Then again, my name isn't Bob, so....
|
