On Mar 17, 4:15*pm, wrote:
bob wrote:
Suppose that it has been discovered that with a certain opening
play that the first player can force a win. One might then say that
checkers has been solved. This knowledge though does not say what the
theoretical status of the game is if a different opening play is
forced.

Do a Google search on phrases (with the quotation marks) such as:

"weakly solved"
"strongly solved"
"ultra-weakly solved"
"ultra-strongly solved"

...then come back and post an answer that DOESN'T suck.

Bob's answer was fine. Some of us actually have to work for a
living. We don't all have time to do 5 hours of research before
posting.

Paul

* Am I missing something in my intuitive argument or is one of the
calculations incorrect? The Trice argument looks solid to me.


Are you the one who used to play with username "Bob" at GetClub? I was
searching for Bob for long time. You left playing long before. Play a
few games at GetClub and see how well it plays now.

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Help Bot used to say that you use Computer's help while playing
against GetClub is that True?

Your games are remarkable. Only Zebediah matches your game style.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Mar 17, 7:08*am, Sanny wrote:
* Am I missing something in my intuitive argument or is one of the
calculations incorrect? The Trice argument looks solid to me.

Are you the one who used to play with username "Bob" at GetClub? I was
searching for Bob for long time. You left playing long before. Play a
few games at GetClub and see how well it plays now.

Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Help Bot used to say that you use Computer's help while playing
against GetClub is that True?

Your games are remarkable. Only Zebediah matches your game style.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

A different Bob than me.

Bob Koca

On Mar 17, 8:46*pm, bob wrote:
On Mar 17, 7:08*am, Sanny wrote:





* Am I missing something in my intuitive argument or is one of the
calculations incorrect? The Trice argument looks solid to me.

Are you the one who used to play with username "Bob" at GetClub? I was
searching for Bob for long time. You left playing long before. Play a
few games at GetClub and see how well it plays now.

Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Help Bot used to say that you use Computer's help while playing
against GetClub is that True?

Your games are remarkable. Only Zebediah matches your game style.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

* *A different Bob than me.

Bob Koca- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Huge coincidence since Bob is an extremely uncommon name.

Paul Epstein

My recollection is slightly different. I remember looking at results
from the highest level of checkers play and a player would win a match
by 1 game to 0 with 20 draws. However, that's an impression from
memory only -- I haven't been able to check it. Can you back up your
claim with hard stats? If the world no. 1 plays the world no. 2,
would they draw less than 95% of their games? (I doubt it.) I think
it's a pretty dead game at the highest level.

I could get exact stats from the American Checker Federation. I am
pretty sure though that, for instance world championship matches, are
something above 80% draws, if maybe not 95%, even with 3-move
restriction. Whether that means it's a "dead" game is a matter of
definition. Certainly at the NON-championship level, the percentage
of draws is very much lower (you can verify this by looking at on-line
play sites). High-level tournaments, when they achieve under 75%
draws, are considered "lively."

But my point was that, while computer analysis shows an absolute draw
for unrestricted play and very likely will show the same for 3-move
play, humans still win and lose. As you point out, it is at a
relatively low percentage, but still, the game continues to be played.

[ Crosspost trimmed. ]

samsloan wrote:
One factor to be considered is that the number of possible moves in
a backgammon games is infinite. The players could easily just
keeping hitting each other to infinity.

The number of possible chess games, while very large, is not
infinite. After a few billion moves the 50-move rule becomes a
factor.

No, the number of possible chess games is infinite, since claiming a
draw under the fifty move rule or threefold repetition is not
mandatory. For analytical purposes, one can consider the game to be
finite, on the assumption that a player who can't win will always
claim the draw as soon as he can and that a player who can win will
never offer a repetition or a fifty-move draw.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Slimy Toy (TM): it's like a fun
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ child's toy but it's covered in goo!

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit

wrote:
On Mar 17, 4:15*pm, wrote:
bob wrote:
Suppose that it has been discovered that with a certain opening
play that the first player can force a win. One might then say that
checkers has been solved. This knowledge though does not say what the
theoretical status of the game is if a different opening play is
forced.

Do a Google search on phrases (with the quotation marks) such as:

"weakly solved"
"strongly solved"
"ultra-weakly solved"
"ultra-strongly solved"

...then come back and post an answer that DOESN'T suck.

Bob's answer was fine. Some of us actually have to work for a
living. We don't all have time to do 5 hours of research before
posting.

Paul

If you don't have time to get true information (five minutes tops using the
search terms above), you should simply STFU rather than posting false information.

"Suppose that it has been discovered that with a certain opening play that
the first player can force a win" is a description of weakly solved. "if
a different opening play is forced" is a description of strongly solved.
If you two dim bulbs would spend five minutes doing the search I suggested,
this would not confuse you so.

wrote in
:


Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit

wrote:
On Mar 17, 4:15*pm, wrote:
bob wrote:
Suppose that it has been discovered that with a certain
opening play that the first player can force a win. One might
then say that checkers has been solved. This knowledge though
does not say what the theoretical status of the game is if a
different opening play is forced.

Do a Google search on phrases (with the quotation marks) such
as:

"weakly solved"
"strongly solved"
"ultra-weakly solved"
"ultra-strongly solved"

...then come back and post an answer that DOESN'T suck.

Bob's answer was fine. Some of us actually have to work for a
living. We don't all have time to do 5 hours of research before
posting.

Paul

If you don't have time to get true information (five minutes
tops using the search terms above), you should simply STFU
rather than posting false information.

"Suppose that it has been discovered that with a certain opening
play that the first player can force a win" is a description of
weakly solved. "if a different opening play is forced" is a
description of strongly solved. If you two dim bulbs would spend
five minutes doing the search I suggested, this would not
confuse you so.

On the other hand, there's a fair degree of entertainment value is
****ing tight-ass pricks like you off.

--
Terry Austin

"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

And the ironic thing is everything I wrote was accurate. Checkers
has only been weakly solved.
From the referenced paper, "With this paper we announce that checkers
has been weakly solved".

Thus my reply was spot on after Frank wrote,
"in the recent ICGA Journal ( www.icga.org) was a lengthy article
about checkers being solved. And AFAIK tournament checkers is a subset
of
freestyle so if the later is solved...."

Nospam, are you this obnoxious when you are not anonymous?

Bob Koca

samsloan writes:

One factor to be considered is that the number of possible moves in a
backgammon games is infinite. The players could easily just keeping
hitting each other to infinity.

That doesn't matter, as long as the number of possible board positions
is finite (which it is).

The main difference between Backgammon and, say, Checkers is not the
possibility of infinite play but the fact that Backgammon involves
random elements, so few positions are definitely winning or definitely
losing -- all you can say is the probability of winning with perfect
play (i.e., always picking the move that gives you the best winning
probability after moving).

You can solve Backgammon by for each possible position have edges to
every other position that it is possible to get to in one move, and
label each edge with the dice outcome that allow this move).

This can be translated into a set of equations that you can solve to
find the probability of each possible position being winning or
losing. The set of equations is huge, but finite.

Torben