Re: XieXie Master -- a recommendation

On Feb 27, 8:31 pm, mikeh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
> furthermore, by "progress" here u are talking about winning over
> humans who are trying to win themselves.  if a human's goal is to
> become the "draw king," that is a completely different story (which is
> what i've been talking about).  and the difference is huge.

So you say in checkers and xiangqi we have reached the limit of
playing ability. Because no one can ever play better than tinsey and
Xu Yin-chuan because tinsey and Xu Yin-chuan would never lose a match.
They can always force a draw. That sounds unimaginative.

Would you say the same for international draughts and world champion
Alexei Chizhov? He would also never lose to a match to a computer? Any
other games?

> how about this: can u pull up results of a top 3 checkers GM who has
> played games against a strong checkers program, and tell us the
> results?  did the program trounce this top 3 player (even tho tinsley
> was far stronger than said player)?  or is the result more like:
> +0-3=60 ?  assuming games at long time controls.

I have not heard of anyone doing this because its suicide. If there
are no GMs playing computers in checkers then why? Is it because they
would always lose? Maybe I will ask this question in 1 of the checkers
forums.

> checkers has been weakly solved (draw by either side).  i heard of no
> news that schaeffer has any plans nor desires to "completely" solve
> checkers.  such a project is too large and few have an interest in
> such a boring game.  he seems relieved the project is finally done,
> and i really dont think he's gonna spend much more time on it at all.

Schaeffer will strongly solve checkers. Schaeffer says on the chinook
page "We will continue our computations to eventually solve all the 3-
move openings". See http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/news/
When that happens will you still say tinsey would still draw a match
with chinook?

> > My guess is tinsey was human so he would have made at least 1 mistake
each game and lost each game to today's chinook.
>
> u are claiming that tinsley would make 1 blunder each game.  no way
> was tinsley that bad.  :-)

Now this is a blunder only at the perfect level of play. To see this
blunder causes a loss, you have look ahead more than 80 moves. Only a
computer can do that. No one could use it to their advantage so it's
not a blunder to our human eyes.