NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/20/computer.checkers.ap/index.html

They 'solved' checkers. You know, sometimes science goes too far. :(

"Clearly ... the world is not going to be revolutionized"
Ya don't say.

Yes, but does it know that the only winning move is to not play?

Yes, but does it know that the only winning move is to not play?

That's not the only winning move.........

Cool! :)

That's not the only winning move.........

Shhh! It might overhear you!

Yes, but does it know that the only winning move is to not play?

Thank you, Lawrence Lasker & Walter F. Parkes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/)

Besides, it isn't like checkers is particularly challenging. It's more of a fun game. Tic-tac-toe with a few more -- okay, a lot more -- variables.

Thank you, Lawrence Lasker & Walter F. Parkes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/)

Besides, it isn't like checkers is particularly challenging. It's more of a fun game. Tic-tac-toe with a few more -- okay, a lot more -- variables.

It's impossible to lose tic-tac-toe unless you make a mistake. It gets repetitive just waiting for the other guy to mess up.

It's impossible to lose tic-tac-toe unless you make a mistake. It gets repetitive just waiting for the other guy to mess up.

Same thing with checkers.

"Saying, 'I'm really good at checkers,' is like saying, 'I'm not good at a lot of stuff.'"

Same thing with checkers.

But I'm not that smart.

It's like spoilers for Checkers...

But I'm not that smart.

Nonsense. You're brilliant. I suck at checkers because I started with chess as a kid. I need my pieces to look and move differently. Such was my inculcated aversion to conformity.

All you need to do is get it down to around 11 pieces and then work to set up a multi jump to jump down to six pieces left or something, throw the machine off...



...probably not...





...whatever, leave me alone stupid checkers computer

I really don't understand why people are so concerned about making a computer play the perfect checkers game. Checkers is supposed to be an interestingly fun diversion, not an I-can-beat-you-every-time competition. They could be doing so many more productive things, wouldn't you think?:rolleyes:

Nonsense. You're brilliant. I suck at checkers because I started with chess as a kid. I need my pieces to look and move differently. Such was my inculcated aversion to conformity.

:fluffle:
Then I'm too lazy to think that hard about checkers.

I'd only be worried if the computers would figure out a way to win Tic-tac-toe...

That would give Wargames a whole new dimension!

Yes, but does it know that the only winning move is to not play?

Surely if the W.O.P.R. could figure it out in 1983 then today's computers could surely come to the same conclusion. Maybe they just don't build them like they use to.

I'd only be worried if the computers would figure out a way to win Tic-tac-toe...

That would give Wargames a whole new dimension!
Such a film.

Matthew Broderick FTW!

I don't understand why this is such a leap for AI (from the BBC article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6907018.stm)). They tried a heuristic approach, which proved fallible, so they resorted to brute computing force. That's not exactly AI.

Bah. I never was any good at chequers.

I don't understand why this is such a leap for AI (from the BBC article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6907018.stm)). They tried a heuristic approach, which proved fallible, so they resorted to brute computing force. That's not exactly AI.

I suppose that it is not necessarily AI, but it does prove that checkers has a winning strategy in the game theory sense of the word.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/07/20/computer.checkers.ap/index.html

They 'solved' checkers. You know, sometimes science goes too far. :(

There, there. It's just a game. :)