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!watmath!clyde!bonnie!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 Check Message-ID: <348@rti-sel.UUCP> Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 00:11:40 EDT Article-I.D.: rti-sel.348 Posted: Tue Aug 13 00:11:40 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 16:22:32 EDT References: <474@oakhill.UUCP> <9100002@ada-uts.UUCP> Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC Lines: 17 > The Samuels checker program (mentioned in the first response to this note) > was in fact better than all human players, including the world champion, > at the time. ... The above statement may be widely believed, but it is simply not true. First, in neither of Samuels' papers on checkers was such a claim made. Second, the Duke checkers program easily beat Samuels' program in a two game match, yet lost to a human player only ranked #2 or so. (In 1979 at least, the gap between Marion Tinsley (#1) and everyone else was just incredible. Tinsley has been champion for *many* years.) > ... In checkers, there's probably no comparison (today) between > the best programs and the humans. Frankly, I have know idea who (if anyone!) has the best checkers program. But I do agree with this statement :-). Tom Truscott