« Queen bees avert the sting in the tail | Main | Manic mood swings can destroy grey matter »

Checkmate for checkers

Computer program is unbeatable at English draughts

Long-time world checkers champion Marion Tinsley consistently bested all comers, losing only nine games in the 40 years following his 1954 crowning. He lost his world championship title to a computer program in 1994 and now that same program has become unbeatable; its creators have proved that even a perfectly played game against it will end in a draw.

Read the story here

Posted by Katharine Sanderson on July 20, 2007 10:26 AM |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3082

Comments

I think it's worth noting that there are many kind of checkers worldwide, and the one that has been solved is the English-American one. As to Italian checkers e.g. (same 8x8 board as the previous one, the main difference is that a men cannot take a king) there are many very strong computer applications today, but the game is yet to be solved. Not to mention International checkers (10x10 board, Kings have long moves just like the Knigths in chess, men can take Kings and can take even backwards), which one could assume to be a more "difficult" game to be solved than chess itself.

Posted by: Giorgio Carbonara | July 20, 2007 11:50 AM

The CNN story implied that chinook can win from any configuration of 10 checkers. Is it really true that chinook can win from a configuration where it has one checker and its opponent has 9?

Posted by: Bob Dillon | July 20, 2007 04:46 PM

Thanks for posting my comment. I think I made a mistake that twists the overall meaning: in the last line I meant "chess itself" rather than "checkers itslef". If you can correct it it could prove helpful.

Posted by: Giorgio Carbonara | July 23, 2007 04:08 PM

Good information.

Posted by: Cep Oyun | October 2, 2007 07:25 PM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.

Search