Xref: utzoo rec.games.chess:1245 comp.ai:2084
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!yale!Martin-Charles
From: Martin-Charles@cs.yale.edu (Charles Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess,comp.ai
Subject: Re: Will computers dominate chess? (was Re: Computers & Chess)
Message-ID: <34884@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 3 Aug 88 18:17:44 GMT
References: <167@kadsma.kadsm> <274@h-three.UUCP> <35187@aero.ARPA>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: Martin-Charles@cs.yale.edu (Charles Martin)
Followup-To: rec.games.chess
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: srt@aero.ARPA (Scott R. Turner)

In article <35187@aero.ARPA>, srt@aero (Scott R. Turner) writes:
    
    Lenat's EURISKO program was innovative enough in Starfleet Battles that
    it was eventually barred from tournament play - after having invented a
    new winning strategy two years running.

Surely you mean /Trillion Credit Squadron/.  Also, my impression is that
EURISKO was not solely responsible for the strategies; considerable editing
was required by Lenat, adjustment of weights, etc.  I believe he cited some
figure such as 60/40 Lenat/EURISKO, which if nothing else at least reflects
his own estimation of the limitations of this program applied to this task.

TCS, while requiring large amounts of data for the various weapon and
defensive systems, is an extremely simple game.  It is the large amount of
data which makes it difficult for humans to "grasp" the game.  The TCS
system was designed to be simple---as the previous three-dimensional game
of maneuver was too complex for people to play with more than a couple of
ships.  Concepts at the level of "fork," basic to tic-tac-toe and chess, do
not play a role in TCS.

The EURISKO line of research was not pursued (as far as I am aware) into
more complex games with less human intervention.

Charles Martin // INTERNET: martin@cs.yale.edu // BITNET: martin@yalecs
UUCP: {cmcl2,harvard,decvax}!yale!martin