Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!trt
From: trt@rti-sel.UUCP (Tom Truscott)
Newsgroups: net.chess
Subject: Re: Why can't a machine be World's Checkers Champ?
Message-ID: <332@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 19:14:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.332
Posted: Tue Aug  6 19:14:16 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 23:29:57 EDT
References: <474@oakhill.UUCP>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 23

I feel that if the effort and expertise spent in creating any one of
the current top five computer chess programs
were spent instead on a computer checkers program
we would have a computer as World Checkers Champion
(not officially, but it would be generally suspected).

For example, back in 1977 a checkers program written
by Eric Jensen, Bruce Wright, and myself
had a credible score (1 win, 2 draws, two losses) against Elbert Lowder
who was at that time considered #2 or so among human players.
The program had an excellent search, was tolerably efficient,
had no opening book, and the authors knew nothing of checkers but the rules.
(In checkers, many tournament games *end* within the book.)
The same authors spent an order of magnitude more effort
on the "Duchess" chess program, which never achieved an Expert rating.

I think the problem with checkers is that, whereas it is much
"easier" for a computer than chess, it is sufficiently harder
than, say, reversi (which is dominated by computers) that few
are willing to put in the effort needed to produce a world beater.
Particularly since checkers is not thought of as an intellectual game.
But it would be an interesting milestone.
	Tom Truscott