Scientific checkers?

[vhabgood]

I have read a few interesting books lately. I finally got around to reading some of Oldbury's stuff. This lead to me researching some into the "scientific checkers" idea. I have found a few interesting things on this, but I am interested in why modern checkerists have went away (or so I think?) from trying to formalize methods to evaluating positions. Anyone care to enlighten me on this?
-Vic

[Danny_Alvarez]

Vic I think Mr Oldbury answered this question himself... personally i think it is because we believe that computer programs are very good at analysing positions. I personally think that computer programs in some situations are not very skillful, but in general they do pretty bloody well.

I quote the great man himself .... (perhaps not great in stature but in checker prowess and ability definitely a great one)

" More than 20 years ago, I propounded a theory, that checker strategy could be evolved from certain specific factors, that these factors were measurable and that by ascribing to each factor a mathematical 'weight' a position-valuation could be arrived at, accurate and applicable to actual play. I published the essence of my system, in 1957, and to quote Ira Gershwin : They All Laughed! "

[Ingo_Zachos]

Science not only explains, but also collects, discusses, describes and classifies.

All this is scientific work.
Look at the 6th or Solid Checkers or Canning's Compilation.

They are scientific works,
and science in checkers is progressing,
though I sometimes miss a good bibliography and the assesments of the postions are often too clear (win, loss, draw), but not very detailed (why (positional reason) is it a loss or a draw, which is the structual/dynamic deficit in this line etc.

So I guess you are asking for a "general" theory of checkers rather then for scientific work.

But note that in most sciences, not the general theories, but the collection and description and the new methods to describe (DNA testung, microscopes, telescopes etc.) and to communicate (computers, internet, mobile phones, new media) have lead to new revelations.

In checkers, playing engines, programs and databases lead to a new quality of sientific work, though this impact is much greater in chess.

General theories are not that popular in science nowadays, and still the world formular is a myth, and, though I may be wrong in this, may remain so forever (it is not that easy to look the creator in the eye!)

Same for checkers:
The big theory (Oldbury) has not seen much developement, but the details are worked on busy, and produce more results that are useful in real life (tournament play).

But look at how Alex for instance introduced the term "trading column", and how many new openings (Gemini, Black Hole, Excalibur) are still created, and you see that work on the details is done busy, but you are right in the way that the general theory has not seen that much publications, but Oldburys Encycopedia, Pask's general themes, his work on "Move Over", some works on formations and some remakrs in the Sixth have been published in that field as well.

It is the same for chess btw: Since Nimzovich no new general theory (Steinitz) has been proposed, but look at the works of Watson or Suba to find that some are still spending time on it, though it produces less "results" then new opening systems, solved endgames or increased training methods (DVD's, vidoes, databases, engines etc.).

Greetinx from cloudy Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

[Danny_Alvarez]

.....
Same for checkers:
The big theory (Oldbury) has not seen much developement, but the details are worked on busy, and produce more results that are useful in real life (tournament play).

But look at how Alex for instance introduced the term "trading column", and how many new openings (Gemini, Black Hole, Excalibur) are still created, and you see that work on the details is done busy, .....

Greetinx from cloudy Dortmund, Germany

Ingo Zachos

Hi Ingo, I agree with most of what you said, but could you please explain what you meant when you mentioned "the details are worked on busy" ?

I thank Vic for posting such a great topic and up till now i have been surprised nobody replied.... i obviously think there are 100 people more qualified than me to answer Vic's question but i decided to resuscitate the topic cause i find it fascinating.
Cheers
Danny Alvarez

[George Hay]

Yellow Magpie has a short article and photograph of Dr. Marion Tinsley. It also has an almost 90 minute YouTube lecture by Dr. Jonathan Schaeffer in 2009. Incredible! --George Hay
http://yellowmagpie.com/dr-marion-tinsley-draughts

[Danny_Alvarez]

Awesome Link George!!!!!!
.... i gotta go and do my lawn mowing before the weather gets too warm here...
but i clicked on it and i saw the first 5 minutes... i look forward to listening to the rest this arvo

cheers and thanks for sharing this

Danny Alvarez