🚀 go-pugleaf

> I'm almost sure that a few years ago I read that man could no longer beat
> a checker program.  And the only way even the world champ could win a game
> was if the computer always moved second. ...

I too have read such reports.  They are sincere but wrong.
In particular Marion Tinsley (math prof., world checkers champion)
has expressed non-trivial contempt for computer checkers programs.
Here is a snip from a paper I wrote on computer checkers:

    ``I should say that at present, there are several thousand
    just average Class B players who could beat either
    [the Duke or Stanford] computer without difficulty.''
    -- W.B. Grandjean, \fIACF bulletin\fP, August 1977
    .QP
    ``Although computers had long since been unbeatable
    at such basic games as checkers, ...''
    -- Clark Whelton, \fIHorizon\fP, February 1978
    .PP
    In computer checkers,
    as in many areas of artificial intelligence,
    misconceptions abound as to the present capabilities of machines. ...


> ... I'm talking main frame well done checker
> programs here, not a radio shack toy.

The Duke checkers program was written entirely in S/360 assembly language
and run on an IBM 370/165, so I guess that qualifies.
But I am sure someone could write a TRS-80 program that could beat it.
Look at Kathe and Dan Spracklin's computer chess successes on a micro.
	Tom Truscott