On Jul 23, 8:41 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

They wouldn't be publishing partial results in _Science_
under the title ``Checkers is Solved.''

As I have not seen that magazine, I have no idea
whether or not "they" (whoever they are) would likely
place such an article under such a name.

The obvious google search [ checkers science magazine ]
[http://www.google.com/search?q=Check...ence+magazine]
brings you right to it:

Er, no it doesn't! That search yields nearly 1.5 million
hits from which to choose. LOL!

The VERY FIRST ONE was _Science_ magazine (Google even gives
you a special "I'm feeling lucky" button...) and ONE CLICK
brought me to the title "Checkers is Solved"


Hmm. One chance out of nearly 1.5 million, and you
got lucky! ;D


I would have
taken you less time to do that then to write the paragraph
above confessing your ignorance.


Speaking of ignorance, I think what you meant to
say was "*It* would have taken you less time to do
that *than* to write the post", but then, such
differences may be too subtle for your sort of mind.

The point of my comments was not to suggest that
the article was difficult to locate; on the contrary, I
merely pointed out how your statement was in error.
As far as I know, the magazine in question can be
found at my local Wal-mart, so that is not the issue.


The rest of your comments are arguing with the wording
of newspaper and magazine articles.


Nah, I don't usually argue with magazine articles
because they can't reason or respond intelligently
(much like IM Innes!); what I did was simply observe
and comment on the hype surrounding this stuff; in
particular, the choice of "solved" I find to be rather
misleading. So, what would have been a better way
to describe an unbeatable machine? Well, how
about "Checkers program now unbeatable" for a
headline? Of course, with Mr. Tinsley out of the
way, this doesn't involve much in the way of risk.

To my mind, many programmers are riding the wave
of the increased power and speed of computers, and
taking as much of the credit for this as they can get
away with. Were it not for technical difficulties, we
could very easily cut through all the bull by loading
the newer programs onto the old hardware, to see
how they fare in direct comparison to their forebears.


Feel free to address
any criticisms of them to the respective authors.


Right. I'm going to track down every author of every
article mentioned here in rgc, and give them a piece
of my mind. LOL


-- help bot