上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 272

[–]Mogg_the_Poet 400ポイント401ポイント  (48子コメント)

I'm waiting for this to made into a TV show where a checkers pro somehow uses his peculiar skillset to solve crimes

[–]SkidMark_wahlberg 495ポイント496ポイント  (23子コメント)

Watch King Me this fall at prime time.

[–]IamBigComfy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Analysis has determined that you have selected the only possible title for the proposed show.

[–]TacoFugitive [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

It will be 7 seasons and a movie, while Firefly is still cancelled...

[–]I_Say_MOOOOOOOOOOOOO [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

If firefly had gotten a full run, it would have had its series finale 2 years ago, and people would be talking about how the 8th season didn't really happen.

[–]candykissnips [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

it's sad that I could actually see this becoming a show.

[–]the_revo1u7ionary [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Every Thursday night after Bitch Hunter and Queen of Jordan

[–]iamnewstudent [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

He would say check mate every time after they corner the guy they're trying to catch.

[–]RatsLiveInPalmTrees [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

That's chess. The obvious artistic integrity of the writers wouldn't let him say anything incorrect like that.

[–]leafhog [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"Checkmate"

"uh... Isn't that chess?"

"Shut-up perp. Book'im, Dano."

[–]Aionar [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Tell that to every show or scene in anything ever remotely resembling a hospital.

[–]RatsLiveInPalmTrees [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nope, all 100% right! Don't you watch the interviews? They consult doctors! Doctors! Obviously it has to be correct.

[–]thedonjohnson [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

now, it's the criminals' turn to get jumped!

[–]GoodAtExplaining [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

THREE MOVES AHEAD

In a city of corruption and crime, Chancellor Exchequer is a man with a head for numbers, and possibilities at his fingertips. With his partner Franqueline Doyle, he's out to take on the biggest crooks Board City has to offer.

"Frank, this is financial corruption from the Mayor's office down. You just have to follow the numbers"

"Dammit Chancellor, I would, but your spreadsheet is printed diagonally."


"Chancellor! Heads up, we've got another killing in the plastic toy district! Killer wrapped his victims in gingham. There are checkers pieces on their eyelids"

"It's the Checkers Killer. No doubt about it. He's getting more subtle. Know if there's any evidence?"

"Uh..... Chance, you're going to want to see this"

Frankie hands Chancellor a bloodied piece of paper with two words written on it

KING. ME.


"3 Moves Ahead, Thursday nights on Fox. Then Friday nights. Then Sunday afternoons. For one season. Aired out of order. Only on Fox.

[–]GoodAtExplaining [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

EXT: MODERN CONCRETE STEEL AND GLASS OFFICE TOWER WITH NEAT LAWNS AND UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS. SIGN READS "BOARD CITY POLICE HEADQUARTERS"

Cut to: Busy office setting, police hustling suspects in handcuffs through the area

Camera cuts to Chancellor Exchequer. Middle height, dressed in a charcoal two-piece suit, shaved and neatly-groomed with a trench coat slung over one arm, a hat perched neatly on his head. His shoes are neatly shined, and his olive skin and dark hair glow in the daylight of the office. He approaches a desk with two coffees and a manila envelope in hand, and puts them both down

"Excuse me, Miss, I'm Ch...."

Franqueline Doyle, a woman in her mid-30s with wavy red hair down to her shoulders, high cheekbones, green eyes, and pale skin, cuts him off, head bent over some paperwork

"Frankie. Nobody calls me Miss. Take a seat, I'll be with you in a s......"

*Doyle looks up, sees Chancellor, and abruptly gets up from her desk. Camera follows her to an office with blinds drawn and a frosted-glass door reading "SGT. F.P. MCNULTY"

Frankie: "NUTTY, GODDAMNIT! DID YOU MAKE ME PARTNERS WITH THE FUCKING CHECKERS CHAMP OF THE DIVISION?"

FP: Frankie, say relax. You don't want to go nutty. Don't do it.

F: WHAT THE HELL, Nutty. Come on, the guy's a walking nutcase. You've gotta be kidding me. He's probably numbered his shoelaces so he knows which shoe they go on. I can't work with a guy like that!

McN: Frankie, why do you think he's here?

McNulty stares into the distance

Look, you remember when I used to work with your dad? I'd come by, bring you ice cream when we were off shift. I knew your dad, even when he became detective. You used to call me Uncle.....

F: Cut the shit, McNulty. You put him here because there's no-one in the goddamn division who'd take the fucking weirdo city-wide checkers champion.

McNulty's eyes harden

McN: Listen, Frankie. I knew your dad, even when they made him detective. He was just as hotheaded as you. Never let a plan slow him down, never was one to think things through. You know where that got him? A pair of cement boots and a one-way ticket to the bottom of the Knight River after messing with the Bishop. I took care of you after that, Frankie. Where the hell do you think your Academy acceptance came from? Who paid the fees? Shut the hell up, Frankie. I don't want you going your dad's way. If I have to make you learn to think by putting you with Checkers, then that's what's going to happen. That's final. Now, go say hello to your new partner. And for fuck's sake, BE NICE."

F: GODDAMNIT.

Doyle storms out of the office, slamming the door behind her so hard that the blinds rattle. She stomps back to her desk.

Chancellor: "Nice to see you again, Frankie. I brought some coffee and our first assignment........"

Frankie cuts him off

F: Listen, you're here because McNulty wants you. I don't give a shit. So the rule is, stay out of my way. I've worked long and hard to get here, and I'll be fucked if some snotnose OCD freak comes into my turf and starts telling me what to do.

C: So nice to see that I haven't discomposed you. I am here to work cases, as my supervisor also shared the opinion that I was far too hidebound by regulations to approach my department's minimu...

F: Second rule. Speak fucking English

C: Fine. I'm here because I like to be too detailed.

Chancellor sighs, and slides a manila envelope across the desk This will, undoubtedly, be a Sisyphean task. Nonetheless, we must take on our first case. There have been recent reports of accountants in Chinatown, linked to Asian gangs, laundering money by printing fake cheques. We will be assigned to investigate.

F: You have to be fucking kidding me. We're....running after Chinese Checkers?

FADEOUT

[–]Parttimebuster [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

There actually was a show on Hulu I think, a chess player solved crimes from his hotel room... it was strange but a pretty good show. Left on a cliffhanger.

He didnt use chess to solve the crimes. But used chess as a distraction like Sherlock in his mind palace.

[–]alexanderwales [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Endgame. The one and only season is available for free on Hulu (at least, if you're in America). I thought it was pretty good, as far as eccentric-guy-solves-mysteries goes.

[–]throwawaythedog [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Endgame. And yea, it was a pretty ok little show. Too bad it ended like that.

[–]hanoian [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Just pull a Suits and introduce at the start and forget about it.

[–]throwawaythedog [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

What did Suits do like this?

[–]Mogg_the_Poet [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Mike's a genius but doesn't ever really do anything geniusey.

At least doesn't appear to. He's constantly working at a law firm without formal training though so that is impressive

[–]FogItNozzel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That and take what wouldv'e been a fun lighthearted comedyish drama and turn it into BIG REVEAL, BAD THINGS, FEELINGS.

[–]Ikimasen [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Seems like kind of a jump to go from checkers to TV.

[–]Mogg_the_Poet [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Depends how close the board is.

I could provably make the leap

[–]yehti [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Twin Peaks kind of did this with Chess.

[–]Whind_Soull[S] 496ポイント497ポイント  (72子コメント)

Two of his seven lost games were against Chinook, the computer program in question. Tinsley won the match, finishing at 4 wins, 2 losses, and 33 draws.

In one game, Chinook, playing with white pieces, made a mistake on the tenth move. Tinsley remarked, "You're going to regret that." Chinook resigned after move 36, fully 26 moves later. The lead programmer Schaeffer looked back into the database and discovered that Tinsley picked the only strategy that could have defeated Chinook from that point and Tinsley was able to see the win 64 moves into the future.

[–]Bears54 453ポイント454ポイント  (61子コメント)

Sometimes I forget where I put my wallet. This guy beat a computer by seeing 64 moves into the future.

[–]Whind_Soull[S] 315ポイント316ポイント  (57子コメント)

I like that he saw a way to force victory 64 moves out, but it took the computer an additional 26 moves to grok the inevitability of its own defeat.

According to the article, Tinsley said that he could generally see about 150 moves into the future during a game. I believe him.

[–]Wompuz 175ポイント176ポイント  (41子コメント)

I thought you guys were talking about chess, holy shit.

[–]Globalwrath 147ポイント148ポイント  (37子コメント)

Checkers is a much more simple game. Admittedly its still quite a feat and I would probably have a hard time seeing more than 5-10 moves into the future.

[–]Condestavel 72ポイント73ポイント  (30子コメント)

Yeah, but if it was chess this would be on a whole new level. Not dismissing this guy's feat at all, but a chess game that even has 64 moves is considered a long one. To be able to see that many moves in advance, with all the literally millions of combinations... Damn, son.

[–]nihilists_lebowski [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

The difference is such that checkers is now considered "solved." There is a computer program that can never lose because all the possibilities in every game have been examined and the winning/drawing strategies found.

The search space for chess is much, much larger, so while chess programs can brute force games against average human players, they must prune search trees with various heuristics at upper levels of play, and examining every possible move is out of the question.

[–]PolygonMan [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

It was solved by Schaeffer and his team who made Chinook at the University of Alberta in Canada.

[–]Kapp_E_Tan [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

And the guy was net positive against the computer... So "solved" is an interesting term

[–]OhCanadarm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Tinsley died several years before it was solved.

[–]KanadainKanada [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Well, read up on Go/Baduk/Weiqi. Simple rules but (near) infinite permutations.

[–]droomph [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I tried to calculate it once, it has around 10900 moves. To put that into perspective, the universe has been alive only about 1013 (I think) years.

[–]nimrod1109 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

On mobile it doesn't show the carrot. Looks like you are crazy fundy.

[–]meepwn53 [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

literally millions

lol. technically correct, but not even close to a fraction of the real number.

[–]Condestavel [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

I was gonna go with billions and then realised I have no idea what the actual number is so I just went with millions...

[–]NortonFord [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

But if you had no idea, why would you use literally?

I'm literally dying because of your improper usage.

[–]Condestavel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I mean... There ARE literally millions. And then there are more. But really, I know I fucked up but I'm not gonna change it now.

[–]torukun [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

literally has been used as an intensifier for over 200 years now. besides, if you want to be a pedant, nothing about his statement is 'technically' incorrect. he said 'literally millions', which is correct- there are literally millions of possible moves, it's just that the total number is much larger.

[–]Mu-Nition [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You get to millions in around 4 moves in chess. The first move of each player is 20, so that's 400 possibilities at move 2; the second usually allows for even more options, but let's say you limited it to still be 20, early on into looking at your third move you would pass a million.

10 moves ahead would more than a billion trillion different possibilities. 64 moves ahead would require more fuel than there is in the sun for a theoretical supercomputer the size of a few galaxies to calculate. So, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

[–]3kindsofsalt [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It isn't possible to see every possible chess event through 64 moves. There is a different, less calculating process happening that allows people to operate like this. Think of all the reaction and monitoring we undergo in a normal day, without processing any of it consciously. And we do it on just a few hundred calories and under 40c.

Seeing 150 checkers moves into the future is pretty awesome as a way of thinking about a way of thinking, but he's not actually permuting 150 moves.

[–]megawatt_pusher [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

exactly, it's like, of all possible moves, only a handful are going to be viable strategies, and of those, you can generally predict what's going to happen based on where the pieces have moved to in previous moves.

[–]-Master-Builder- [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I play checkers with my friends quite a lot, and am considered pretty good among my group. I can only read like ~10 moves ahead depending on who I'm playing. This guy was a genius.

[–]Theboomman [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Hahaha damn I am glad I read this far. I just started to get back into chess again and after reading that was like fuck it.

[–]micmea1 16ポイント17ポイント  (6子コメント)

I wonder what's that like in your brain. Like, I literally can't comprehend it because my brain does not work that way. It's like being able to see another color or something.

[–]question_all_things [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

You can do this. You do this already. It's all about "the task" being something you do A LOT and have done a lot for some time. An unrelated example, I cycle a lot. In my head right now I can see every turn and transition from here to my usual destination ~3 miles away.

If we both went on a ride together you'd take a downhill a bit too slow, or whatever, and I'd say "you're going to regret that". You wouldn't understand because you don't know what's next, but I do. And I know poor execution of this bit of the ride here is going to fuck you for the next few minutes (it's pretty hilly here).

Even if one of my hard core cycle friends came and rode with me this would happen. Because I can ride this route perfectly. I know where the bumps are, the dead animal that's now in two pieces. The sunflowers that extend too far into the bike lane, what order the lights change in and where the low hanging tree branches are. I know that the exit for this apt complex is one you dont have to slow for, because it's almost never used. And I know the next exit you have to be careful at, because twats live there and they dont pay much attention.

We all do this already, just not with checkers.

[–]gramathy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, this is something anyone can do after enough experience. Obviously some of it is generalized (someone who hasn't been on your bike route but rides a lot might take the calculated risk on that turn even though he didn't know what was next, knowing he could probably bail himself out of a bad situation) but specialized knowledge continues to develop as you do something more and more. It's what separates the skilled from the truly talented.

[–]314314314 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sometimes I lose track on the way counting up from 1 to 150

[–]Bears54 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is very impressive.

[–]Pugletroid3 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Plz tell me grok is a real word with a real definition that really fits into that sentence.

Ima grok the shit out of this word now

[–]Whind_Soull[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It essentially means 'to understand,' but on a deeper and more intuitive level. For example, you may be able to sit down and decipher some C++ code, and thus claim to 'understand' it, but you only grok it when you can read it like a book and understand it without any conscious effort to do so.

In this case, Chinook may have had some idea that it was losing, but it wasn't until move 36 that it was able to completely grasp the fact that it had no way of winning, and thus resigned.

The word 'grok' was coined by Robert A. Heinlein in his 1961 novel, Stranger in a Strange Land.

[–]chiry23 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think I'd be the perfect opponent to defeat him. His knowledge of predicting moves in the future is based on him knowing how his opponent will react to the situations. He can't know how I'm going to react if I'm just moving pieces at random. Checkers Mate!

[–]reallydumb4real [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He also talked to a computer program he was playing checkers with. So yeah.

[–]mattshill [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

4 wins, 2 losses, and 33 draws

Checkers is sort of like Tic Tac Toe in that it's actually incredibly easy to get a draw if you play the right move from the beginning it's just that you'll never win and thus win the match playing it. Therefore if your playing black it's very common to play for a draw then when your white play for the win as you have initiative to force the opponent into making moves to defend.

It's similar in chess at high levels stalemates become more common although chess is far more complicated than checkers in terms of total number of possible outcomes and theres no way to force a draw playing either colour.

Source: Played for Northern Ireland/Ulster at chess.

[–]felixar90 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Aren't the pieces usually red & black, not white & black?

[–]zeritor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I've seen White and Black, White and Brown, Red and Black, Red and White. etc... I don't think there's a strong a standard as there is with Chess.

Usually as long as one is white OR black, you just assume the other color is the opposite. So Red + Black, means Red is White whilst Red + White, means red is Black

[–]mattshill [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Depends on the board, I've seen black and red, red and white as wells as Black and White.

My boards Black and white which is more common in British Draughts as opposed to American Checkers where the board usually comes in Red and Black. I'm not sure if theres an official colour set at tournament level.

[–]ronin1066 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Isn't it possible he just recognized a pattern that he had seen before and not that he was literally seeing 64 moves into the future?

If someone makes a mistake in tic tac toe I don't have to play the whole thing out in my head to know they're going to lose.

[–]DefaultGen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

4 wins, 2 losses, and 33 draws

I hate to crap on someone's game of choice, but checkers sound awful if this is what high level competition was even before it was solved.

[–]ArosHD [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You can play the program he played here.

And you can watch some games here.

[–]Magnesus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I remember writing a checkers program. It could see 8 moves into the future and no one could beat it. 64 moves would take ages to calculate for our computer back then...

[–]Talik_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is some Meruem and Komugi level shit 😱

[–]ILikeLenexa 99ポイント100ポイント  (29子コメント)

Checkers (English Draughts) is a solved game with perfect play on both sides, it will always be a draw.

It's a bit harder to see than in Othello/Reversi, but there's only a few possible games.

There's 7 opening moves, but half of them are just mirrors of the others in the other direction. In turn, these only have 7 responses and they flow into only 6 responses.

[–]Fredd500 [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

xkcd is as always relevant.

[–]xkcd_transcriber [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Image

Title: Game AIs

Title-text: The top computer champion at Seven Minutes in Heaven is a Honda-built Realdoll, but to date it has been unable to outperform the human Seven Minutes in Heaven champion, Ken Jennings.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 43 times, representing 0.0539% of referenced xkcds.


xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete

[–]Euralos [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I dont know if I want to live in a world where computers beat us at "7 Minutes in Heaven"

[–]cat5inthecradle [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You won't want to live in the world - you'd be content living in a closet.

[–]droomph [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

(DO YOU WANT TO FUCK)

"Realdoll…I'm…I don't think…I'm robosexual…"

(WHATEVER, PRUDE. I BET YOU DON'T GIVE GOOD ROBO-HEAD ANYWAYS)

[–]hidden_secret [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Computers lose to top humans in Poker ? Er... I don't think so. You might win half of the games if you're able to use the same tactic as the computer, but I don't see how you could win more games than the computer on average.

[–]why_rob_y [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm not familiar with the AIs you're referring to, but spamming APM doesn't necessarily make them unbeatable. They could be at 10,000,000 APM and still lose on macro play, right?

[–]Popkins [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If computers won against top humans in poker every single high stake tournament and cash game on the world wide web would be full of them.

Are they? Nope.

[–]garrettcolas [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

How did he forget Warhammer?

It's basically Turbo-Chess.

[–]FrigoCoder [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Starcraft: Brood War bots have no chance against progamers.

[–]chaitin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

True, but this is very recent. When Tinsley played Chinook it was not able to play perfectly yet (hence him being able to beat it). "Only a few possible games" is a gross exaggeration; the game has over 1020 legal positions and is provably computationally hard to solve. The "solved" result did not analyze all positions, and used very advanced techniques developed solely for the purpose of solving checkers.

The fact that Tinsley was able to beat a computer 12 years before it was provably unbeatable as white and 15 years before checkers was completely solved is extremely impressive. Bear in mind that this is when these were proven; the program was likely playing very close to perfectly during their match.

[–]pramirez184 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm very interested in finding out if Chess is a solved game. Given the fact that there are finite possible position, I see reason it wouldn't be.

[–]Friscogonewild 155ポイント156ポイント  (14子コメント)

Pssh, I've played for 30 years and never lost. You just have to know how to pick your opponents.

[–]fuzzymidget 68ポイント69ポイント  (3子コメント)

Daycares hate him!

[–]esccx [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I thought this was a horrible butchering of Descartes and was so confused.

[–]josh-dmww [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well I thought he meant Dracarys at first... And was very confused, because it's not even a name!

[–]Connor4Wilson [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I haven't played checkers at all, so I've lost fewer matches than this guy. I'm basically the best

[–]PainMatrix 65ポイント66ポイント  (8子コメント)

I've got nearly the same unbeaten record in Connect Four

against my 7-year-old

[–]fr3ddie 24ポイント25ポイント  (2子コメント)

your 7 year old is 45 years old?

[–]XenophonTheBoss [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, he just forfeited due to absence for the first 38 years

[–]RankWeis [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think he's referring to the four wins, two losses and thirty three draws. Shits intense in the PainMatrix family

[–]zazu2006 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If you go first in connect 4 and play optimally you will never lose. It is an example of a solved game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connect_Four

[–]Leandover [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Connect 4 is a solved game, the first player always wins with perfect play.

[–]PainMatrix [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's why I never let the little shit go first.

[–]DefaultGen [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Checkers is a solved game too, it's just much more complex!

[–]stubept [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

I'm always amazed by the number of people who don't know how to ACTUALLY play checkers.

Got into a fight with my wife one time when I told her she had to jump my piece. Apparently, a lot of people are taught that you can make any move you want at any time.

[–]The-Beer-Baron [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Wait... You're saying if you can jump a piece, then you have to jump it?

Yeah, I was never taught that. I guess I don't know how to actually play checkers.

[–]fatalspoons [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's more fun with the real rules. Allows you to force your opponent into making a bad jump that results in a double or triple jump for you. Is always so satisfying when you can pull that off.

[–]vinng86 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Yup. It's like in monopoly where you can't actually upgrade a property to hotel immediately. You have to own all properties of the same color and then you can only upgrade them equally. You're actually supposed to barter and trade with other players in order to acquire the properties you want but few people ever played that way.

[–]MainerZ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I've always played it like that, but when we play it, it's more pressure and trickery to sell than anything else. Ruthless.

[–]scuff [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The things you've mentioned are what I would expect to see, but there's a thing about monopoly where everyone does something different. Free parking, auctions, upgrades, etc... does anyone ever play with ALL the rules of Monopoly as written? I'm sure it's even less fun that way. There are many other better board games out there.

[–]reddicure [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I've played monopoly with a lot of different people and I've never heard of that house rule.

[–]raohthekenoh [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's basically the only true strat in the game. Sacrificing for big moves

[–]wiithepiiple [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Huh, that makes checkers a lot more interesting. So if you can double jump, do you have to do both jumps or is only jumping the first an option?

[–]frikk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You have to always take a jump, if a jump is available.

[–]captainmandrake [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The ACF and the EDA were placed in the awkward position of naming a new world champion, a title which would be worthless as long as Tinsley was alive. The ACF granted Tinsley the title of World Champion Emeritus as a solution.

Dude was so good, they gave up on trying to find a better player. Everyone else just played for second place.

[–]Mr_Frank_Underwood 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Didn't know you could play checkers into more than 64 moves

[–]ProudTurtle 9ポイント10ポイント  (51子コメント)

It's funny that you don't hear more about professional checker players. It's always about chess and Magnus Carlsen and so forth.

[–]spartacus311 93ポイント94ポイント  (49子コメント)

Because checkers is a solved game. Played right it always results in a draw.

Chinook (the computer in the title) solved the game after being withdrawn from competition. It can't ever lose now.

Chess on the other hand is still one of the most complex board games and has not been solved. Humans can still beat computers.

[–]coriamon 47ポイント48ポイント  (9子コメント)

Humans cannot beat computers at this point in time. It is true that the game has not been and will not be solved for a long long time, but the amount of pure processing power that an engine has will always beat out a human nowadays. There are positions where one side is quite a bit better from a human perspective that computers don't understand, but the computer will still play a solid game in that position and likely draw or win the game. For perspective, Magnus Carlsen (the reigning chess champion and highest rated in history) is rated 2900ish and the strongest engines are 3300+.

[–]Condestavel 10ポイント11ポイント  (8子コメント)

For people who don't know, the above comment refers to the players' *Elo, where a big number is better.

[–]banjoman74 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Man, I loved those players - an awesome blend of pop with classical overtones.

A lot of people pick Evil Woman as their favourite song, but Rock and Roll is King will always hold a special place in my heart.

[–]Condestavel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I like the happy tone of Mr Blue Sky, and of course, who could forget Livin' Thing?

[–]PainMatrix 13ポイント14ポイント  (33子コメント)

I was curious about your comment and wondered if chess would ever be "solved." The current estimate is something called the Shannon number which estimates that there are 10120 possible permutations. As a comparison the number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be around 4x1080. Apparently it would take huge leaps in quantum computing to solve it, but it's theoretically feasible.

[–]OrbisTerre 9ポイント10ポイント  (28子コメント)

Go is apparently even more complex than chess in this regard.

[–]PainMatrix 7ポイント8ポイント  (11子コメント)

10761 possible games.

[–]Condestavel 7ポイント8ポイント  (10子コメント)

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. I didn't know they even made numbers that big.

[–]Vallosota [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That includes a whole bunch of random bullshit moves. The number of realistic games is a bit less.

[–]Bardfinn25 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

random bullshit moves

The problem with this statement is, because the game is so far away from being solved, and the nature of the game makes some moves and configurations beneficial in the "short term" and some beneficial in the "long term", evaluating what is and isn't a "bullshit" move is not feasible until the game is over — or solved.

[–]raserei0408 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I know. Last I had heard, the largest known number was 45 billion.

[–]kunstlich 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

On a 19x19 board, no computer has beaten a 9 dan without using stone handicaps, as far as I know.

[–]darthlala [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Still need 4-5 stones, which is massive for pro level games.

[–]kunstlich [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think there was an isolated game where it had a 3 stone, but it was a one off, so not conclusive.

[–]CharlieDeBeadle [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

So am I right in thinking it would actually be impossible to store every game of chess ever, since there aren't enough atoms in the observable universe to make a storage device?

[–]chaitin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Every game of chess possible, yes.

(Every game of chess ever actually played is, of course, a much smaller number and could easily be stored)

[–]chaitin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Quantum computing is unlikely to significantly help solve chess.

It specializes in problems with very specific structure, which can be analyzed in parallel using quantum effects. Chess, however, essentially requires all positions to be searched using brute force (it is EXPTIME-complete). While it is possible that quantum computing will help somewhat, there is no indication in our knowledge today that (even if quantum computing replaces our current technology completely) it will be able to make significant progress on problems like these.

[–]MakingMarconi [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Extremely relevant xkcd. The last time a human beat a computer at chess was in 2005.

[–]xkcd_transcriber [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Image

Title: Game AIs

Title-text: The top computer champion at Seven Minutes in Heaven is a Honda-built Realdoll, but to date it has been unable to outperform the human Seven Minutes in Heaven champion, Ken Jennings.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 44 times, representing 0.0552% of referenced xkcds.


xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete

[–]IkmoIkmo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Humans can still beat computers.

I really doubt that, in fact I don't think it's true. Of course you have to rely on empirical evidence and that's hard to say because there's not a ton of grandmaster-vs-computer matches anymore, but you can guess why. (name the last time a GM beat a computer)

There've been quite a few matches a long time ago, like in the 90s. The most recent example is the complete trashing of one of the world's best players in Hikaru Nakamura, in a handicapped game by the disadvantaged Stockfish (no opening book or endgame tablebase, while Nakamura had pawn odds / help from Rybka, another chess engine) in 2014.

Players can still draw chess engines pretty easily, but beat chess engines? I doubt it. You can use the number of such chess matches being played as a proxy for the odds, Magnus would jump on the opportunity if he thought he could legitimately win, I think that's pretty safe to say, and you can infer a lot from the fact these matches aren't happening.

[–]chaitin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This true but may be misleading to some. Checkers is solved in theory, but it is still interesting for humans to play it (it's just not interesting to play a computer that can play perfectly).

In the same way, knowing that a given Sudoku puzzle can be solved doesn't make it any less interesting. Checkers is extremely complicated, and though less technically complicated than chess, there is still lots of fun to be had in playing it, even competitively. The same way that chess is fun even though it is much less complicated than Go, and even though computers are much better than humans at it.

[–]Bedeone 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Potentially it's because chess is a more complex version of checkers, due to the fact that pieces have different types of movement, and depending on your model a different weight, more intricate decision trees have to be built. So it's not surprising that someone can think ahead more moves in checkers than someone can in chess.

[–]TitsOnANun 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I saw a video of the computer's reaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiQzDC0GVt0

[–]WorkoutProblems [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Is that a legit strat?

[–]TitsOnANun [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I imagine it would work best on children, but I think otherwise you would just have to focus on eliminating enough pieces that the opponent is forced to start moving their back row.

[–]TheBroodyBaron [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Army theme

He's not just strong, he's Autism strong.

[–]DBDude [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"You're going to regret that" 64 moves ahead? Damn.

[–]oigetit [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

True story, I knew a kid who was the number two checkers player in the US. He was like Magnusson but for checkers not chess. He even did one of those group matches when he played against 10 people at the same time and best everyone. Sadly he got mixed up in some bad stuff and transferred schools.

[–]iia 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Checker? I hardly know 'er!

[–]jrm2007 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think he may have been at the same school as Dirac for a while. Dirac was a chess player.

[–]IamTheFreshmaker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Fun stuff: Go masters can remember every move in a game- both sides.

[–]IamTheFreshmaker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

For Brits, the game in question is draughts.

[–]Stereotypy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

yeah, but the winning strategy is SO EASY. "don't lose."

Geez, you people give this guy waaay too much credit. SHEESH

[–]ArosHD [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You can play the program he played here.

And you can watch some games here.

[–]maugust09 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'd be more impressed if he played chess. I can only imagine how many moves out the top players can see...

[–]Zach_comic [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

When he played chess he would poop in his hand & throw it at opponents at the beginning of the game. Then he'd rub poop in his hair & roll around on the floor until someone took the pieces & board away.

[–]Zonflax [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sounds like an IRL Jernau Gurgeh.

[–]Bohnanza [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Me too. However, I've only played checkers 7 times in the last 45 years.

[–]2059FF [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I learned Marion Tinsley's story from Jonathan Schaeffer's book, One Jump Ahead.

Schaeffer headed the team at the University of Alberta that solved the game of checkers in 2007.