On Jul 20, 7:19 am, David Richerby
wrote:

That is a slightly stronger condition and I'm not sure exactly what
the UAlberta guys have done. At the very least, they can tell you
whether any position that can be reached from the initial position
according to the replies they would make is a win, loss or draw. (In
chess terms, if their computer would play 1.d4 all the time, it might
not be able to tell you about unreachable positions such as that after
1.e4.)


I didn't read the link because I would have to sign up
and go through all that junk, just to read about checkers.
:D


Yes, checkers is very, very much simpler than chess. But it's still a
pretty complex game and far more complex than anything that's been
solved before.


Except... the human genome, for instance. And
developing "the bomb". The thing is, checkers is
a finite problem, so, unlike exploring space, you
know exactly how far you have to go to the end.


I am wondering whether they really "solved" the game or, as the
chosen language suggests, they merely succeeded in never losing in
practice.

They're claiming in scientific journals that they've solved it.
Nobody publish that claim if all they'd done was produce a very very
strong engine.


Sanny would. And Sam Sloan. And Weaver Adams.


-- help bot