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