Re: XieXie Master -- a recommendation

On Feb 26, 11:34=A0pm, mark <mschr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:08=A0pm, mikeh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> I agree with you that for the next 5 years he could force a draw. But
> there is a steady small improvement of at least 1 dan level every 4
> years for the computer. In 20 years the computer will be 5 dan
> stronger. Then the computer will be too strong and win most of the
> games.

this is the source of our disagreement.  u believe the draw window is
sufficiently narrow enough in xiangqi such that the progress we've
seen in xq programs will continue at the same pace for the next 20-yrs
as we've seen in the previous 5.  what evidence do u have for this?

> Are you saying tinsley could win today against chinook? Chinook plays
> almost perfectly. Tinsley in top form today could not even draw 1 game
> with Chinook. For Tinsley to draw 1 game he would have to play it
> perfectly. Tinsley was the best but not perfect.

no, i'm not saying tinsley could actually *win* a game.  the draw
window is so wide in checkers that tinsley could draw at will (w/ very
rare losses on occassion).  so it's not the case at all that "tinsley
could not even draw 1 game w/ chinook."  any checkers GM can draw
(i.e. draw probability greater than say, 50%) a game w/ chinook,
nevermind tinsley.  furthermore, analysis using chinook of some of
tinsley's games have shown that he in fact did play perfectly for
several dozen moves in some of his games.  he was the closest thing to
perfect that any player has ever achieved in any board game.  a large
reason is because checkers is a much simpler game than the likes of
chess, xiangqi, reversi, et al.