Checkers Solved, Unbeatable Database Created 359
tgeller writes "My story on the Nature site announced that a team of computer scientists at the University of Alberta has solved checkers. From the game's 500 billion billion positions (5 * 10^20), 'Chinook' has determined which 100,000 billion (10^14) are needed for their proof, and run through all relevant decision trees. They've set up a site where you can see the proof, traverse the logic, and play their unbeatable automaton. '[Jonathan] Schaeffer notes that his research has implications beyond the checkers board. The same algorithms his team writes to solve games could be helpful in searching other databases, such as vast lists of biological information because, as he says, "At the core, they both reduce to the same fundamental problem: large, compressed data sets that have to be accessed quickly."'"
Checkers, Not Draughts (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I've heard before that "it takes longer to learn to play checkers at the master level than it does chess. What checkers lacks in breadth, it makes up in precision and finality. [smithsonianmagazine.com]" I realize that puts me at risk of being modded as flamebait but I wonder if any other Slashdot reader can confirm or contest that.
So, who wins? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We'll always have Go (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/16x
Re:Checkers, Not Draughts (Score:3, Interesting)
"[Checkers is] a very finely balanced game, and a very subtle game. The subtleties of checkers are not very well appreciated by the average player. You play as a kid and someone always wins. In chess, differences are larger: In chess, you can make a mistake and still recover. In checkers, if you make a mistake, even a small one, you probably won't recover. People are fascinated by this game of minutiae, if you will. At a high level, at least two games out of three, no-one can gain that small advantage and so the game ends in a draw."
Re:The writing's been on the wall... (Score:5, Interesting)
They randomise starting back-rank positions now in some tournaments, to stave off the eventual "book death" that has already conquered checkers.
I made up my own variation with randomness that I call Schrödinger's Chess [rowan.edu].
Let me know if you try it out.
Re:Checkers, Not Draughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Great Story!
Re:The writing's been on the wall... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not surprised that checkers has been solved. As a programmer and an engineer, I cheer in the fact that a difficult problem has been solved, as a human being, I'm sad in a way. Computers are tools, humans are well, humans. There must remain some ways we can think better.
Shaeffer's book about Chinook (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.amazon.com/One-Jump-Ahead-Challenging-
Includes the details of the Tinsley matches and Tinsley's untimely death. Interesting for people interested in the effects of technology on human societies, as well as some of the technical aspects of the program (as it was in 1997).
Re:We'll always have Go (Score:2, Interesting)
Duh? Go is _designed_ to be played on a 19x19 grid; the sheer size of the board is an important aspect to strategy. Chess on a 4x2 board doesn't sound too exciting, either (but I'd try 3/2x3/4 tic-tac-toe any day). For the record, 9x9 go (as played on a chess board) is still quite interesting. As for full size go, here is a quote from http://senseis.xmp.net/ [xmp.net], the go wiki: "It is commonly said that no game has ever been played twice. This may be true: On a 19×19 board, there are about 3^361×0.012 = 2.1×10^170 possible positions, most of which are the end result of about (120!)^2 = 4.5×10^397 different (no-capture) games, for a total of about 9.3×10^567 games. Allowing captures gives as many as 10^(7.49×10^48) possible games, most of which last for over 1.6×10^49 moves! (By contrast, [...] physicists estimate that there are not more than 10^90 protons in the entire universe.)"
Re:Flawed proof (Score:2, Interesting)
Not sure who wrote it, but the 4 colour theorem was the first computer aided proof.
And I am afraid I have to agree.
Funny Story (Score:2, Interesting)
One day, we were learning about the "Dining Philosopher" problem. The problem is about 3 philosophers that have to acquire two (shared) utensils on either side of them before they can eat the food in front of them. Those of you familiar with the problem should understand
Anyway, he came in with a pot of spaghetti, forks, and plates. He actually had some students sit down and go through the algorithm. When the first one took a bite off the plate, he asked "Pretty Good, huh?" (of course the student agreed). He also threw some spaghetti against the wall to prove that it was well cooked.
So, after the first student went through the algorithm and used the fork, you can imagine the grimace from the second student that had to use the same shared fork as the first student..
hah! Still makes me laugh.
I won't ever forget about acquiring mutexes in the correct order, however.
Re:Two Words (Score:1, Interesting)