From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2007-10-29T15:05:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Checkers library

Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 10/28/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
>> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 2007, at 10:11 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> 
>>>> Yeah, especially in light of the fact that there is a "perfect"
>>>> checkers program now -- it can't be beaten, only tied.
>>> I bet that took more than a weekend to build.  ;)
> 
>> The original Samuels checker program was probably built in a couple of
>> weeks and probably would play perfect checkers on an infinitely fast IBM
>> 704. :) I haven't paid much attention to what's inside the current
>> champion -- Texas Hold 'Em seems like a lot more fun.
> 
> It might be my senility, but I seem to remember the Samuel's program,
> or a close descendant of the original beat the current world champion,
> at least in a single game, quite early, like in the early 1960s.

I don't think it was that good. It was good enough, however, to remove 
enough of the challenge from programming the game that nobody put in the 
effort to make better programs. Instead, they moved on to more difficult 
games.

Curiously enough, it looks like Go is nowhere near being even 
competently played by a computer, while chess and poker have credible 
computer players and checkers has gone the way of Tic-Tac-Toe and Blackjack.