David Richerby wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
They wouldn't be publishing partial results in _Science_ under the
title ``Checkers is Solved.'' [...] See
http://chinook.cs.ualberta.ca/users/chinook/index.html
for a demonstration.
a) don't believe everything you read in "Science"

Of course.

b) we don't want a demonstration - we want a proof.

Of course. But the paper hasn't been published yet and isn't
available on the project website.

In which case, it's perhaps wise to wait before making announcemens,
making claims, and certainly before trying to evaluate the claims.
Perhaps we should just wait for the paper and then read it.

Unless, of course, one has seen a review copy - but it would be
unethical to base any comments on such a source, right?

So that's all there is for the time
being. But I suspect the proof will consist of ``We ran the initial
position through this big alpha-beta search using ten-man tablebases
to evaluate the leaves and it said `draw'.'' It's hard to imagine any
other sort of proof for something so big. It is, after all,
essentially just the case-split of the century.


I wonder if that part of the tree that they expanded will fit in one
issue of "Science".



--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/