Who wins a match between the world champion and a computer?

[mschribr]

The conditions, preparation, end game databases, time limt etc., should be carefully chosen.

What would be the ideal conditions, preparation, end game databases, time limt etc.?

3.No use of databases. It should be a challenge between man and machine at the time present. Calculation times before actualy playing, used to create databases, is not a part of the challenge. (Preparation in advance is a different type of condition.)

I agree with you except for the database. The database should be allowed. The database is like the world champion’s memory. The world champion remembers positions and moves. The computer also remembers positions and moves in a database.

[Hanco Elenbaas]

German Wikipediapages on draughts/checkers:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame_(Spiel)

Computer-Dame
Das erste Dame-Programm wurde 1952 von Arthur Samuel, einem Forscher bei IBM, geschrieben, und war eines der ersten Spielprogramme für Computer überhaupt. Bis 1962 verbesserte Samuel das Programm noch mehrmals. Ein Charakteristikum war die Fähigkeit des Programms, die Strategie anhand der Spielweise der Gegner anzupassen. Gegen starke menschliche Spieler war dieses Programm noch chancenlos; dennoch bildet es einen wichtigen Meilenstein in der Entwicklung der Künstlichen Intelligenz.
<center>

Marion Tinsley</center>

Das stärkste Dame-Programm war Chinook, das von einer Gruppe unter Leitung Jonathan Schaeffers geschrieben wurde. Marion Tinsley, der Weltmeister von 1955-1962 und 1975-1991, besiegte das Programm im Jahre 1992; aufgrund von Gesundheitsproblemen musste er 1994 ein Spiel abbrechen. Chinook ist nach dem Gewinn des Mensch-Maschine Titels nicht mehr angetreten. Die enorme Spielstärke heutiger Programme ist vor allem auch dadurch begründet, dass heute bereits 10-Steine-Endspiele in einer riesigen Datenbank vorhanden sind. Eines der weltstärksten Programme ist Cake Manchester, eine Freeware-Engine für das Programm Checkerboard. Auf der Seite findet man Partien und andere starke Engines.

Heute auf PCs laufende Programme können eigentlich nicht mehr gegen menschliche Gegner verlieren. Allerdings gibt es heute nur noch wenige große Meister im Damespiel, so dass Vergleiche mit der Spielstärke der 1980er und 1990er Jahre schwer sind. Auch aufgrund der absoluten Überlegenheit des Computers im Damespiel finden sich nur wenige Nachwuchsspieler. Cake Manchester nahm auch an der Computer-Dame Weltmeisterschaft 2002 in Las Vegas teil. Es siegte dort Nemesis vor KingsRow und Cake. Es ist ein verbreitetes Missverständnis, dass das Damespiel ein vollständig analysiertes, gelöstes Spiel sei. Man vermutet, dass das Damespiel etwa 1018 Stellungen besitzt. Eine vollständige Lösung des Spiels wird noch vor dem Jahre 2010 erwartet. Derzeit arbeiten Jonathan Schaeffer und seine Kollegen vom Chinook-Projekt daran. Im August 2004 gelang ihnen ein Teilerfolg: Eine bestimmte Eröffnung (der White Doctor) wurde als unentschieden bewiesen. Das Programm Chinook wird nun mit dieser Kenntnis in dieser Eröffnung nicht mehr verlieren, und immer dann gewinnen, wenn der Gegner einen Fehler macht.

[mschribr]

German Wikipediapages on draughts/checkers:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame_(Spiel)

Computer-Dame
Das erste Dame-Programm wurde 1952 von Arthur Samuel, einem Forscher bei IBM, geschrieben, und war .......

I do not read German. I did a machine translation. It gives the history of computer 64 square English draughts. Today computers are so strong they never lose to a human in 64 square English draughts.

Why do you quote this article? I was asking in my poll about International draughts not about 64 square English draughts. International draughts is harder to play and program a computer to play than 64 square English draughts. We can not make precise inferences from 64 square English draughts to International draughts.
Mark

[Hanco Elenbaas]

Why do you quote this article? I was asking in my poll about International draughts not about 64 square English draughts.

This topic also handles 64 square.
The German article is pretty strange. Especially when it says : "Eine vollständige Lösung des Spiels wird noch vor dem Jahre 2010 erwartet" and "Allerdings gibt es heute nur noch wenige große Meister im Damespiel, so dass Vergleiche mit der Spielstärke der 1980er und 1990er Jahre schwer sind". I guess Ron King and Alex Moiseyev won't be pleased.

[mschribr]

The German article is pretty strange. Especially when it says : "Eine vollständige Lösung des Spiels wird noch vor dem Jahre 2010 erwartet" and "Allerdings gibt es heute nur noch wenige große Meister im Damespiel, so dass Vergleiche mit der Spielstärke der 1980er und 1990er Jahre schwer sind". I guess Ron King and Alex Moiseyev won't be pleased.

I am not sure what it means. Can you translate? Does it say the computer can beat every human at the 64 square English draughts game?

[ildjarn]

The German article is pretty strange. Especially when it says : "Eine vollständige Lösung des Spiels wird noch vor dem Jahre 2010 erwartet" and "Allerdings gibt es heute nur noch wenige große Meister im Damespiel, so dass Vergleiche mit der Spielstärke der 1980er und 1990er Jahre schwer sind". I guess Ron King and Alex Moiseyev won't be pleased.

I am not sure what it means. Can you translate? Does it say the computer can beat every human at the 64 square English draughts game?

"A complete resolution of the game is expected by 2010", and "However there are very few very great players in checkers these days, so it's difficult to compare the playing strength of the '80s and the '90s"

[Peter van Heun]

What would be the ideal conditions, preparation, end game databases, time limt etc.?

3.No use of databases. It should be a challenge between man and machine at the time present. Calculation times before actualy playing, used to create databases, is not a part of the challenge. (Preparation in advance is a different type of condition.)

I agree with you except for the database. The database should be allowed. The database is like the world champion’s memory. The world champion remembers positions and moves. The computer also remembers positions and moves in a database.

Allowing a database does mean the end of the game. Playing draughts, and al kind of other games, is making less mistakes then your opponent and benefit from the mistakes of your opponent. A computer is able to make mistakes, not playing the "best" move, as long as it has to make calculations. A computer does not make calculations anymore when it can find the result in a database. So I don't think allowing a database has anything more to do with a game/play/battle between man and machine.

On the contrary, using opening books, I forgot about it in the previous list, should be allowed I think. In there you can compare the memory of man with machine.

PS. At one time in the future the computer will always be better then a human being because.

[mschribr]

3.No use of databases. It should be a challenge between man and machine at the time present. Calculation times before actualy playing, used to create databases, is not a part of the challenge. (Preparation in advance is a different type of condition.)

I agree with you except for the database. The database should be allowed. The database is like the world champion’s memory. The world champion remembers positions and moves. The computer also remembers positions and moves in a database.

Allowing a database does mean the end of the game. Playing draughts, and al kind of other games, is making less mistakes then your opponent and benefit from the mistakes of your opponent. A computer is able to make mistakes, not playing the "best" move, as long as it has to make calculations. A computer does not make calculations anymore when it can find the result in a database. So I don't think allowing a database has anything more to do with a game/play/battle between man and machine.

On the contrary, using opening books, I forgot about it in the previous list, should be allowed I think. In there you can compare the memory of man with machine.

PS. At one time in the future the computer will always be better then a human being because.

You are saying do not allow endgame database. Because the human does not have an endgame database therefore the computer has something extra and is therefore not fair. Make the computer play without an endgame database, more like a human. But the computer is not a human. The computer does not play like a human. It does have different strengths like better memory than the human memory. The human has strengths like pattern recognition and learning better than the computer. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. We should not make the computer play like a human or the human play like a computer. The goal should be to make each player use its strengths to the maximum so that each would play the best game. We should only require each player make legal moves within the time limit without help. The goal should not be to make the computer play like human.

[ildjarn]

You are saying do not allow endgame database. Because the human does not have an endgame database therefore the computer has something extra and is therefore not fair.

That's not what Peter was saying. What he said (and I agree with that) : When the database is hit, the computer isn't playing draughts anymore, it's playing a perfectly known game.

IIRC, in the matches Chinook-Tinsley, whenever a database position was reached, the result of that database was used as final result. This would allow the computer to use the database in calculations, but would disallow unfair play in endgames because the computer would know the best move, while the player would have to find it (although in the case of Tinsley, he probably knew it also...)

Perhaps something like that could be arranged for 100sq draughts matches also.

[mschribr]

They were not the official rules of the Chinook-Tinsley match. The rules of the match did not say the computer team had to tell Tinsley the position was in the endgame database as a draw. In game 1 the position on the board was in the Chinook database as a draw. Schaeffer offered a draw. Tinsley rejected it and continued to play for hours trying to win. After the game Schaeffer said in future games he would tell Tinsley if the position was in the endgame database.

Schaeffer did not want to exhaust Tinsley, 65, with long games. Chizhov, 41, is much younger than Tinsley. The world champion should play with the same rules he plays others, without an endgame database. After the tournament they found bugs in the database but it did not affect game 1. It turned out both were far from perfect. Tinsley did not see the draw. The database was not always correct. The Chinook-Tinsley matches were exciting Checkers at the world champion level.

Peter’s rule is different than ildjarn’s rule. Peter said no database for the computer. ildjarn’s way is better than Peter’s way. But the best way is the official rules of the Chinook-Tinsley match.

[mschribr]

Popular Russian newspaper Sport Express published after the World championship 2005 an interview with the winner Alexei Chizhov.
http://www.sport-express.ru/art.shtml?111713

Alexei is not only 10-time world champion ( and so the strongest draughts player all time ) but also the computer freak. Therefore his opinion is very interesting

Can you fight the strongest computer program?
Why should I? I won't loose, but I can't win because computer defends phenomenally. He sees all my threats many moves before. And to play blitz games agains computer has no sense, he will never make a serious mistake and certainly will win. Draughts players with self respect use computer as database and sparring partner, first of all for studying of end games. Nobody is planning fight him.

The world champion Alexei Chizhov, also an expert in computers, said in 2005 that he was equal to the computer. So in 2007 draughts programs are smarter. Opening books are bigger. Endgame databases are bigger. Computers are faster. All of these things give draughts programs an increase of at least 30 points a year. Then after 2 years the best draughts program is over 60 points stronger. That should be enough to beat the world champion. If not, then next year the computer will 90 points stronger that will definitely be enough to beat the world champion. Soon the world champion will be too afraid of losing to play the computer. So if we don’t have a man vs computer match now then the opportunity will be lost and we will never have the match.
Mark

[Hanco Elenbaas]

Popular Russian newspaper Sport Express published after the World championship 2005 an interview with the winner Alexei Chizhov.
http://www.sport-express.ru/art.shtml?111713

Alexei is not only 10-time world champion ( and so the strongest draughts player all time ) but also the computer freak. Therefore his opinion is very interesting

Can you fight the strongest computer program?
Why should I? I won't loose, but I can't win because computer defends phenomenally. He sees all my threats many moves before. And to play blitz games agains computer has no sense, he will never make a serious mistake and certainly will win. Draughts players with self respect use computer as database and sparring partner, first of all for studying of end games. Nobody is planning fight him.

The world champion Alexei Chizhov, also an expert in computers, said in 2005 that he was equal to the computer. So in 2007 draughts programs are smarter. Opening books are bigger. Endgame databases are bigger. Computers are faster. All of these things give draughts programs an increase of at least 30 points a year. Then after 2 years the best draughts program is over 60 points stronger. That should be enough to beat the world champion. If not, then next year the computer will 90 points stronger that will definitely be enough to beat the world champion. Soon the world champion will be too afraid of losing to play the computer. So if we don’t have a man vs computer match now then the opportunity will be lost and we will never have the match.
Mark

The world champion will play the match when there will be a serious sponsor.
No serious sponsor, no match.

[mschribr]

The world champion will play the match when there will be a serious sponsor.

Which tournament or match generated the greatest interest and publicity in the history of draughts? In chess I think the Fischer Spassky and the Kasparov Deep Blue matches had the greatest public interest. In the Fischer Spassky match people saw the contrast of the superpowers United States and Russia. In the Kasparov Deep Blue matches people saw the contrast of man and machine. Which draughts tournament or match generated the greatest interest and why?

[Hanco Elenbaas]

The world champion will play the match when there will be a serious sponsor.

Which tournament or match generated the greatest interest and publicity in the history of draughts? In chess I think the Fischer Spassky and the Kasparov Deep Blue matches had the greatest public interest. In the Fischer Spassky match people saw the contrast of the superpowers United States and Russia. In the Kasparov Deep Blue matches people saw the contrast of man and machine. Which draughts tournament or match generated the greatest interest and why?

I think the greatest interest and publicity had the 1973 Sijbrands-Andreiko match. For matches between man and machine there was never the same interest, mainly because there never were serious sponsors involved.

[Bert Zwart]

Popular Russian newspaper Sport Express published after the World championship 2005 an interview with the winner Alexei Chizhov.
http://www.sport-express.ru/art.shtml?111713

Alexei is not only 10-time world champion ( and so the strongest draughts player all time ) but also the computer freak. Therefore his opinion is very interesting

Can you fight the strongest computer program?
Why should I? I won't loose, but I can't win because computer defends phenomenally. He sees all my threats many moves before. And to play blitz games agains computer has no sense, he will never make a serious mistake and certainly will win. Draughts players with self respect use computer as database and sparring partner, first of all for studying of end games. Nobody is planning fight him.

The world champion Alexei Chizhov, also an expert in computers, said in 2005 that he was equal to the computer. So in 2007 draughts programs are smarter. Opening books are bigger. Endgame databases are bigger. Computers are faster. All of these things give draughts programs an increase of at least 30 points a year. Then after 2 years the best draughts program is over 60 points stronger. That should be enough to beat the world champion. If not, then next year the computer will 90 points stronger that will definitely be enough to beat the world champion. Soon the world champion will be too afraid of losing to play the computer. So if we don’t have a man vs computer match now then the opportunity will be lost and we will never have the match.
Mark

If Tsjizjov wants, he can achieve a draw against any object or creature in the universe, in particular against a quantum computer.

The reason is that three kings against one is still a draw.
In practice this means that a game is only likely not to end in a draw if the difference in strength is 250 points or more.