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