On 10/28/07, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb / cesmail.net> wrote:
> James Edward Gray II wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2007, at 10:11 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

> >> Yeah, especially in light of the fact that there is a "perfect"
> >> checkers program now -- it can't be beaten, only tied.
> >
> > I bet that took more than a weekend to build.  ;)

> The original Samuels checker program was probably built in a couple of
> weeks and probably would play perfect checkers on an infinitely fast IBM
> 704. :) I haven't paid much attention to what's inside the current
> champion -- Texas Hold 'Em seems like a lot more fun.

It might be my senility, but I seem to remember the Samuel's program,
or a close descendant of the original beat the current world champion,
at least in a single game, quite early, like in the early 1960s.

Or course, Checkers is a much simpler game than Chess, or Texas Hold 'em
-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/