as a knight I think you can join this tournament if you are invited and Purple said he sent you an invite so it should be joinable right?
Maybe someone can offer to upgrade you to a rook :)

JamesHird: It was nice of you to suggest
someone upgrade my membership,only i am sure people have better things to do with there money than sponcer a down and out checker player,for the moment i am cutting back on internet activities, so my knight status is adequate.

EdTrice: I hope there will be room for both. "Slugfest" sounds pretty fancy to me for a title. LOL. Good luck to everybody.

my tournament is open for all, non-exclusive. it doesn't have a fancy title, and that's the one I will be playing in.

Jake Lopez: It's the best we have to work with and for this tournament everyone will be taken at his/her word.

Most of the top BK checkers players (Ed Trice for one) use programs and/or books to play their games. One little online tournament with cheaters mixed with non cheaters wouldn't reveal "The Best Checkers Player"

JamesHird: Have until June to figure it out. LOL

Purple: eek, I didnt think of that
wouldn't it then be wiser to save this tourney up for when ALL the top players are able to play in it.
Or maybe someone could donate a membership to him? I wont because I dont really know him and I have given far too many memberships away in the past but maybe someone who knows him can pop him a 6 month knight membership or something. It's only 10 bucks.
AD hasn't paid for a membership in a while, maybe he is feeling generous?

JamesHird: Patch (who is a fine player) is committed to another tournament and can't enter as he is not a Rook. There may be others in that situation but anyone who wants an invite can have one.

Purple: This has the makings of being a great tourney Purple.
Also, if any top players refuse, you would have to consider the possibility that they are too scared to lose against other quality opponents

The top 20 have been invited. If you think you can beat these players then request an invite. http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=8881&tri=42460&trnst=0

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=8873&trnst=0

And take a guess who this is:

http://brainking.com/en/Profile?u=15519

Everyone should put you on ignore Ed Trice....you're a cheater

(yawn)

Pedro Martínez: I guess it might be for the best

Jake Lopez: How come you don't get the bulletin, Jake Lopez???

Let's everybody put him on hide, he doesn't get the bulletin!!!

Jake Lopez: If you don't know the answer to that, you don't get the American Checker Federation bulletin. You are now on hide Jake, I will no longer respond to you. Have a great life.

Well did you play it offline or online ?

I did not write the Kingsrow program, and everyone knows I beat the 9-piece database version of Kingsrow 1-0 with 19 draws last November.

It would be great if someone could set up a program for people to play against similar to the one Chinook has. You can still play Chinook but since no one is maintaining the Wall of Honor there is no recognition for beating it. It may be an expensive proposition..I have no idea..but it is something I bet a lot of people would like to see.

Don't you use your kingsrow program, Ed Trice?

I am a candidate to attend the next a.i. gaming conference in Taiwan this coming September. As such, I have been asked to perform a "peer review" of some of the papers that are being submitted for publishing. One of the papers I will be grading is being written by Dr. Jonathan Schaeffer of the Chinook team.

Dr. Schaeffer has already solved the 10-piece database for the game of checkers. The drawback is, you have to start with 5 kings against 5 kings, then do 5 kings vs. 4 kings + 1 checker, 4 kings + 1 checker vs. 4 kings + 1 checkers, etc., until you get to the most interesing database: 5 checkers vs. 5 checkers.

So, to solve the 11-piece datbase, you need to do 6 kings vs. 5 kings... and the whole mess takes forever.

I proposed a means to "jump right to" 6 checkers vs. 5 checkers, knocking off about 12 years of computation (the databases are really that large) in a casual conversation to his team in 2003. It turns out, I was partially incorrect, but they came up with a means to bridge the gap.

Using a new technique, they are tackling 6 checkers vs. 5 checkers without having to do the tremendously wasteful computation starting with the kings.

It is a fascinating paper.

A program's weakness is that it is will not play like a strong human player in the endgame.

I thought that my cited example was obvious.

EdTrice: Then a program's weakness is lack of aggression? I had understood the identified weaknesses were failure to recognize that it is worth playing from man down to get a King and a tendency not to handle a smother.

EVERY program that probes endgame databases will prefer a KNOWN db result to a score backed up from a leaf node that has imperfect information associated with it.

A prorgam would throw away half its army if it could recover it with a draw.

A program would throw away a very mobile king for no reason when it is practically running you out of moves, all for the sole purpose to get into its endgame databases.

This has been demonstrated.

Greg Murray, aka Usurper, is the player named Bullet.

EdTrice: Two possible alternate explanations. One it could have been an inadvertant clerical mistake and he moved before he could take it back..or two he's not a very good player. I admit they are both stretches. I still don't understand what program would King sacrifice unless it was set to play for a draw like some Chinook lines are. I hate to comment on a game still in progress but at the conclusion it would be a great game for analysis.

did everyone ever try this version of solitaire?

it is said to be unsolved ..

you have to let 1 pawn standing in the end and everything else removed

i know the straight variant (its in dutch but you can chose 'solitaire' to play it) .. and can play it perfectly

but i havent tried the diagonal version of it :)

It is up to everyone to decide on their own. I showed a position where there is no reason to throw away a king, yet software programs do it all the time.

I am a researcher of games programming, so I am fairly knowledgeable in this area.

http://www.GothicChess.org/papers.html is one source of technical papers I have written.

I am just stating the facts after I have been given a tip.

Well, someone tipped me off that Bullet might be using a computer program, and they asked me to try and uncover proof of this. It is no easy task to deal with computer programs, and the only way to get at the root of it all is to somehow force the opponent into a situation where he leaves his fingerprints behind.

I would like everyone to take a look at "Exhibit A"

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=813374&i=42

In this position, please notice, my opponent has just thrown away his king, for no reason. My side is seemingly hard pressed to find the draw (the only way to expose a computer user is to get yourself into a scrape that you can just barely get out of, while demonstrating "inhuman" play leading to the draw from their side) but you can see how to achieve it easy enough.

I need to get 3 checkers along one diagonal (f6-g5-h4) and just trade off a piece to break the secondary bridge (f6-e7, d8xf6, g5xe7, with an easy draw thereafter).

So why did my opponent throw away his strongest resourcce, his freely mobile king, while I am "squirming"?

The answer: software always plays for the first opportunity to enter into a database position that is "known". Throwing away the king then winning back one of my pieces virtually assures this in short order.

Every other "human" on the planet would move the piece on d6, perhaps d6-e5 forcing f2-g3 or the like.

And that concludes the investigation.

[IP tracer 3.4.1]
[(c) 2005 Antimicrosoft Hackers, Inc.]
[define target layer = URL]
[URL = ?]
[http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=813374]


[Trace Mode = ? {! for options}]
[__active__userhit__names@ip.reg__]
[
;;;; trace started pass 001 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 002 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 003 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 004 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 005 ;;;;]
[__domain_user_1__ "Ed Trice" ]
[;;;; trace started pass 006 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 007 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 008 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 009 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 010 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 011 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 012 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 013 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 014 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 015 ;;;;]
[;;;; trace started pass 016 ;;;;]
[__domain_user_2__ "Greg Murray" ]
[+++ trace end @ 2 users found +++]

Purple: My old Classic would not work, maybe the new box will, I think it takes Java. A new box owner will have to try to get on.

EdTrice: Do you know if this is webtv compatible?

Live checkers play is available for limited testing (until the full site is built).

Come on in and play in real time.

http://www.GothicChessLive.com


This is a shakedown to get the bugs out, sign in, play, and give feedback (look for the "Checkers Test" room under "The Gothic Room" when you sign on.)

EdTrice: Would my dad fit in there, he taught me...

Everyone who has had the World Checkers Champion come to your house to play a game of checkers with you, raise your hand.

(puts his hand up)

Purple: Thanks Purple, I understand

Jumper: There are a few but some don't want their nics revealed. Obviously George Miller #20 is using his real name and he should be very proud. If they ever updated he Chinook Wall of Honor several more of us would be there on it.

Purple: Say, Bill, how many of the Brain King players are in that list?

http://usacheckers.com/acfratings.php?start=0&sortedby=rank&aord=a&last_sort...

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=8659&u=4398&trnst=0

Purple: Ustica also offers checkers variations in this dynamic FS. Get in on the ground floor and contact him if interested and if you have an accomplished record.

If you are GOOD and want to join the best Ustica is taking applications http://brainking.com/game/ShowFellowship?fid=380

http://www.acfcheckers.com/10best.html

Nomad gave fair warning. The next non-checkers post will earn the poster the weekend off.

ughaibu: Not going to single anyone out I am going to remove the whole thread anyone have any questions about it please contact me with a PM.

Thank you

Purple: 11th move you went 20-16 that was the loser let him set up triple jump with next couple of moves it should have been 32-28.

Purple: I think white is second best after
23-19 (move 6) 21-17 recommended, the 3 for 2 at move 11 ???

1. 11-15 22-18 2. 15-22 25-18 3. 8-11 29-25 4. 4-8
24-20 5. 10-15 25-22 6. 12-16 23-19 7. 16-23 26-19-10
8. 7-14-23 27-18 9. 9-14 18-9 10. 5-14 28-24 11. 11-15
20-16 12. 15-18 22-15 13. 8-11 15-8 14. 3-12-19-28
31-27 15. 6-10 27-24 16. 10-15 24-20 17. 1-6 20-16
18. 14-17 21-14 * Classic white single corner defense crashed. Can you spot the point?

brownsugar51: I'll accept checker invites as long as it is for 3 days or more. I have a couple open invites out in fact