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!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!akgua!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: <345@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 00:05:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.345
Posted: Mon Aug 12 00:05:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 00:43:51 EDT
References: <474@oakhill.UUCP> <10913@rochester.UUCP> <357@ccice1.UUCP>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 13

> If an algorithm exists that insures a win for the first player, checkers is
> then not a game.

Hmm, that might be putting it a bit harshly.  People still play tic-tac-toe.
More interestingly, if such algorithm does *not* exist
then either the second player wins, or the game is a draw.  Grim all around.

There is a real (to me) possibility that checkers could be "solved"
with little more effort than that needed make a world champion.
The search tree grows at an effective rate of ~ 2^depth,
and there are probably a reasonably finite number of different positions.
Anyway, it is something to consider.
	Tom Truscott