Schaeffer's paper online

Main

Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:44:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Schaeffer's paper online

[I've cross-posted this to rgc.misc and rgc.computer but set
follow-ups to the former, since this isn't about compuer chess as
such.]

Schaeffer, Burch, Bjornsson, Kishimoto, Mueller, Lake, Lu and
Sutphen's paper _Checkers is Solved_ (Science, 19th July 2007) is now
available free online at

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf

I've not had chance to read it, yet.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Adult Tree (TM): it's like a tree that
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ you won't want the children to see!

Date: 11 Aug 2007 15:46:26
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

On Aug 10, 5:05 am, David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk >
wrote:
> raylopez99<raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > (I don't expect you to prove PSPACE .neq. NP problems, I'm just
> > point out why I posted my obnoxious post).
>
> Ray, it's clear that you don't understand the basics of complexity
> theory. You don't understand the difference between a problem and an
> instance. You don't understand what NP is or what PSPACE is.

Yes I do moron. I almost majored in math. You are projecting your own
inadequacies here. Explain why Kenneth Sloan on Aug 9, 4:17 pm said
"brilliant!" to my rebuttal, buttal. Because I am, dumbo.

>
> If you hadn't spent so much of your time insulting me, I might have
> been inclined to try to explain these things to you. But you have, so
> I'm not. You could try reading Papadimitriou's book _Computational
> Complexity_ (Addison Wesley, 1994, ISBN 0-201-53082-1).
>

Why do I need to read his book when I can just ask him in person?

Grow up idiot. You lost this thread. Now go home, loser.

RL

Date: 11 Aug 2007 19:05:40
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

raylopez99 wrote:
> On Aug 10, 5:05 am, David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> wrote:
>> raylopez99<raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> (I don't expect you to prove PSPACE .neq. NP problems, I'm just
>>> point out why I posted my obnoxious post).
>> Ray, it's clear that you don't understand the basics of complexity
>> theory. You don't understand the difference between a problem and an
>> instance. You don't understand what NP is or what PSPACE is.
>
> Yes I do moron. I almost majored in math. You are projecting your own
> inadequacies here. Explain why Kenneth Sloan on Aug 9, 4:17 pm said
> "brilliant!" to my rebuttal, buttal. Because I am, dumbo.

It's always dangerous to make inference based on the postings of anyone
named Sloan on USENET.

>
>> If you hadn't spent so much of your time insulting me, I might have
>> been inclined to try to explain these things to you. But you have, so
>> I'm not. You could try reading Papadimitriou's book _Computational
>> Complexity_ (Addison Wesley, 1994, ISBN 0-201-53082-1).
>>
>
> Why do I need to read his book when I can just ask him in person?
>
> Grow up idiot. You lost this thread. Now go home, loser.
>
> RL
>

Let A be the set of people who understand complexity theory.

Let B be the set of people who understand USENET.

A is neither a sub-set nor a superset of B.

Discuss.

Publish your results in _Science_ - preferably with a nice cover photo.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Aug 2007 14:50:31
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

On Aug 9, 2:09 pm, Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> raylopez99 wrote:
> > Essentially solving draughts is an NP hard problem, a variant of the
> > traveling salesman problem, which can be 'solved' heuristically, as I
> > indicated in another post (reproduced below).
>
> ***usually***, when we speak of NP-hard problems, there is some 'n' which can
> increase indefinitely. The running time of the solution is given as a
> function of n, e.g. T(n).
>
> Where do you find this 'n' in draughts?

"***Usually***", I post stupid stuff under this name. But "usually",
as you know, unless you exhaustively consider every possible
combination, does not "prove" anything in math. So one of these days
even I will post something brilliant (actually, I am being sarcastic,
as I usually post brilliantly every time).

THe issue is: is a PSPACE problem, like solving draughts, within the
space of NP problems? (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSPACE-complete
These problems are widely suspected to be outside of P and NP, ***but
that is not known*** [EMPHASIS ADDED])

In other words, are you claiming that NP problems cannot be solved
(since n increases indefinitely), and, therefore, since a PSPACE
problem like draughts has been solved, ipso facto PSPACE is not within
the space of NP problems? If so, you are making the error of
generalizing from a particular to the general.

(I don't expect you to prove PSPACE .neq. NP problems, I'm just point
out why I posted my obnoxious post).

RL

>
> Are you perhaps thinking of draughts-variants where the size of the
> board increases?
>
> In my world, draughts, chess, and tic-tac-toe are all solvable in
> CONSTANT time. Problems that can be solved in constant time are not
> usually considered to be NP-hard.
>
> Your milage may vary.
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan KennethRSl...@gmail.com
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 10 Aug 2007 13:05:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

raylopez99 <raylopez99@yahoo.com > wrote:
> (I don't expect you to prove PSPACE .neq. NP problems, I'm just
> point out why I posted my obnoxious post).

Ray, it's clear that you don't understand the basics of complexity
theory. You don't understand the difference between a problem and an
instance. You don't understand what NP is or what PSPACE is.

If you hadn't spent so much of your time insulting me, I might have
been inclined to try to explain these things to you. But you have, so
I'm not. You could try reading Papadimitriou's book _Computational
Complexity_ (Addison Wesley, 1994, ISBN 0-201-53082-1).

Dave.

--
David Richerby Disgusting Slimy Gnome (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a smiling garden ornament but
it's covered in goo and it'll turn
your stomach!

Date: 11 Aug 2007 19:01:35
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

David Richerby wrote:
> raylopez99 <raylopez99@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> (I don't expect you to prove PSPACE .neq. NP problems, I'm just
>> point out why I posted my obnoxious post).
>
> Ray, it's clear that you don't understand the basics of complexity
> theory. You don't understand the difference between a problem and an
> instance. You don't understand what NP is or what PSPACE is.
>
> If you hadn't spent so much of your time insulting me, I might have
> been inclined to try to explain these things to you. But you have, so
> I'm not. You could try reading Papadimitriou's book _Computational
> Complexity_ (Addison Wesley, 1994, ISBN 0-201-53082-1).
>
>
> Dave.
>

Just like a Theoretician - proposing an impractical solution.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Aug 2007 18:17:35
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

brilliant!

raylopez99 wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2:09 pm, Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> raylopez99 wrote:
>>> Essentially solving draughts is an NP hard problem, a variant of the
>>> traveling salesman problem, which can be 'solved' heuristically, as I
>>> indicated in another post (reproduced below).
>> ***usually***, when we speak of NP-hard problems, there is some 'n' which can
>> increase indefinitely. The running time of the solution is given as a
>> function of n, e.g. T(n).
>>
>> Where do you find this 'n' in draughts?
>
> "***Usually***", I post stupid stuff under this name. But "usually",
> as you know, unless you exhaustively consider every possible
> combination, does not "prove" anything in math. So one of these days
> even I will post something brilliant (actually, I am being sarcastic,
> as I usually post brilliantly every time).
>
> THe issue is: is a PSPACE problem, like solving draughts, within the
> space of NP problems? (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSPACE-complete
> These problems are widely suspected to be outside of P and NP, ***but
> that is not known*** [EMPHASIS ADDED])
>
> In other words, are you claiming that NP problems cannot be solved
> (since n increases indefinitely), and, therefore, since a PSPACE
> problem like draughts has been solved, ipso facto PSPACE is not within
> the space of NP problems? If so, you are making the error of
> generalizing from a particular to the general.
>
> (I don't expect you to prove PSPACE .neq. NP problems, I'm just point
> out why I posted my obnoxious post).
>
> RL
>
>
>> Are you perhaps thinking of draughts-variants where the size of the
>> board increases?
>>
>> In my world, draughts, chess, and tic-tac-toe are all solvable in
>> CONSTANT time. Problems that can be solved in constant time are not
>> usually considered to be NP-hard.
>>
>> Your milage may vary.
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth Sloan KennethRSl...@gmail.com
>> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
>> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
>> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
>
>

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Aug 2007 15:24:35
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

David Richerby wrote:
> [I've cross-posted this to rgc.misc and rgc.computer but set
> follow-ups to the former, since this isn't about compuer chess as
> such.]
>
> Schaeffer, Burch, Bjornsson, Kishimoto, Mueller, Lake, Lu and
> Sutphen's paper _Checkers is Solved_ (Science, 19th July 2007) is now
> available free online at
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf
>
> I've not had chance to read it, yet.
>
>
> Dave.
>
Perhaps that's why you haven't noticed that only the ABSTRACT is free -
the paper requires a subscription.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Aug 2007 16:32:01
From: Kerry Liles
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

If you follow the revised link in the thread, you can download the paper -
not the abstract (unless the abstract is ~9 pages)

"Kenneth Sloan" <KennethRSloan@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:f9ft7t$nsu$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu...
> David Richerby wrote:
>> [I've cross-posted this to rgc.misc and rgc.computer but set
>> follow-ups to the former, since this isn't about compuer chess as
>> such.]
>>
>> Schaeffer, Burch, Bjornsson, Kishimoto, Mueller, Lake, Lu and
>> Sutphen's paper _Checkers is Solved_ (Science, 19th July 2007) is now
>> available free online at
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf
>>
>> I've not had chance to read it, yet.
>>
>>
>> Dave.
>>
> Perhaps that's why you haven't noticed that only the ABSTRACT is free -
> the paper requires a subscription.
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
> Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
> University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
> Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Aug 2007 16:13:31
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Kerry Liles wrote:
> If you follow the revised link in the thread, you can download the paper -
> not the abstract (unless the abstract is ~9 pages)
>
>

It's much easier if you are already a member of AAAS. If not, following
the link FROM THE AUTHOR'S SITE also works. Cutting and pasting URLs
to bypass both membership AND visiting the author's site is ... deprecated.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 10 Aug 2007 01:17:08
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com > wrote:
> It's much easier if you are already a member of AAAS. If not,
> following the link FROM THE AUTHOR'S SITE also works.

Yes. We've already been through this upthread.

> Cutting and pasting URLs to bypass both membership AND visiting the
> author's site is ... deprecated.

Only by _Science_. Why should I have to visit the author's website to
view his paper? Saying that anyone can view page X but only if they
come in via page Y is just absurd. The URL should either work for
everyone or require a subscription; anything else is just pissing
people around.

Meanwhile, if you want to visit me at home, I will not tell you my
address unless you pay me. On the other hand, you can ask this
person, who will give my address, for free, to anyone who asks.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Moistened.com (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like an E-commerce portal but
it's moist and perfect for your
grandparents!

Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:25:16
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

David Richerby wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's much easier if you are already a member of AAAS. If not,
>> following the link FROM THE AUTHOR'S SITE also works.
>
> Yes. We've already been through this upthread.
>
>> Cutting and pasting URLs to bypass both membership AND visiting the
>> author's site is ... deprecated.
>
> Only by _Science_. Why should I have to visit the author's website to
> view his paper? Saying that anyone can view page X but only if they
> come in via page Y is just absurd. The URL should either work for
> everyone or require a subscription; anything else is just pissing
> people around.
>
> Meanwhile, if you want to visit me at home, I will not tell you my
> address unless you pay me. On the other hand, you can ask this
> person, who will give my address, for free, to anyone who asks.
>
>
> Dave.
>

some people believe in intellectual property...and some people don't.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 10 Aug 2007 07:53:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Cutting and pasting URLs to bypass both membership AND visiting
>>> the author's site is ... deprecated.
>>
>> Only by _Science_. Why should I have to visit the author's website
>> to view his paper? Saying that anyone can view page X but only if
>> they come in via page Y is just absurd. The URL should either work
>> for everyone or require a subscription; anything else is just
>> pissing people around.
>
> some people believe in intellectual property...and some people don't.

This has nothing to do with IP. The paper is available for free, from
the copyright holder, to anybody who wants it. But you have to
perform an arbitrary act in order to obtain it.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Technicolor Whisky (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a single-malt whisky but it's in
realistic colour!

Date: 10 Aug 2007 02:48:07
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

David Richerby wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>> Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Cutting and pasting URLs to bypass both membership AND visiting
>>>> the author's site is ... deprecated.
>>> Only by _Science_. Why should I have to visit the author's website
>>> to view his paper? Saying that anyone can view page X but only if
>>> they come in via page Y is just absurd. The URL should either work
>>> for everyone or require a subscription; anything else is just
>>> pissing people around.
>> some people believe in intellectual property...and some people don't.
>
> This has nothing to do with IP. The paper is available for free, from
> the copyright holder, to anybody who wants it. But you have to
> perform an arbitrary act in order to obtain it.
>
>
> Dave.
>

You have to comply with conditions set by the copyright holder.

Or, if you have a mind to, you can (try to) circumvent those conditions.

I guess it's up to you, and your personal views on the matter.

Perhaps people who have published in _Science_ might have different
views than those who have not.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 10 Aug 2007 12:06:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> The paper is available for free, from the copyright holder, to
>> anybody who wants it. But you have to perform an arbitrary act in
>> order to obtain it.
>
> You have to comply with conditions set by the copyright holder.

Yes but in this case, the conditions are fucking stupid.

> Or, if you have a mind to, you can (try to) circumvent those
> conditions.

I'm not trying to circumvent the conditions. I'm complaining that
they're fucking stupid.

Anyone who wishes to quote any of my text in this post must whistle
the first bar of Beethoven's fifth symphony.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Impossible Poisonous Tool (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a handy household tool
but it'll kill you in seconds and it
can't exist!

Date: 24 Aug 2007 21:38:25
From: mike
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Is there going to be a movie? I'm, like, not so much into papers, you know?

>
> Anyone who wishes to quote any of my text in this post must whistle
> the first bar of Beethoven's fifth symphony.
>

Dum dum dum duuuuuuuummmmmm..........
Dum dum dum duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmm.
dum dum dum dum
<dum dum dum dum >
dum dum dum dum
>dum dum dum dum<
dum dum dum (dum)
<dm dm dm dm >
dum dum dum (dum)
<dm dm dm dm >
dum dum dum dum .... dum ... dum.
Dum dum dum duuuuuuuummmmmm.........

Sorry, that's more than the first bar. And it's not really whistling, is
it? But once I got started, I couldn't stop. That's the way it is with
Beethoven, you know.

>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Impossible Poisonous Tool (TM):
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a handy household tool
> but it'll kill you in seconds and
> it
> can't exist!

Date: 11 Aug 2007 19:08:18
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

David Richerby wrote:
> Kenneth Sloan <KennethRSloan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>> The paper is available for free, from the copyright holder, to
>>> anybody who wants it. But you have to perform an arbitrary act in
>>> order to obtain it.
>> You have to comply with conditions set by the copyright holder.
>
> Yes but in this case, the conditions are fucking stupid.
>
>
>> Or, if you have a mind to, you can (try to) circumvent those
>> conditions.
>
> I'm not trying to circumvent the conditions.

Ah...but you did!

> I'm complaining that
> they're fucking stupid.

No, it appears to me that you have been complaining because your efforts
were twarted.

>
> Anyone who wishes to quote any of my text in this post must whistle
> the first bar of Beethoven's fifth symphony.
>
>
> Dave.
>

Make me. <stamps right foot three times >

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Aug 2007 09:04:18
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Essentially solving draughts is an NP hard problem, a variant of the
traveling salesman problem, which can be 'solved' heuristically, as I
indicated in another post (reproduced below).

Cheers,

RL

On Aug 9, 7:04 am, David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk >
wrote:

> raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Your knowledge is imperfect. Read the below and understand, then
> > post.

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-hard

> And generalized checkers (determining who wins an arbitrary position
> on an arbitrary board) is PSPACE-complete[1]. But all of this is,
> frankly, irrelevant, for the reasons I've stated elsewhere in the
> thread.

You are irrelevant, and irreverant to boot.

Educate yourself little man at the links below, and then get back to
us with your impressions of self-discovery. We're waiting with
baited
breath. Maybe we'll let you then play mathematician like the big
boys
do.

RL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSPACE-complete

These problems are widely suspected to be outside of P and NP, ***but
that is not known*** [EMPHASIS ADDED]
-

On Aug 9, 5:44 am, David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk >
wrote:
> [I've cross-posted this to rgc.misc and rgc.computer but set
> follow-ups to the former, since this isn't about compuer chess as
> such.]
>
> Schaeffer, Burch, Bjornsson, Kishimoto, Mueller, Lake, Lu and
> Sutphen's paper _Checkers is Solved_ (Science, 19th July 2007) is now
> available free online at
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf
>
> I've not had chance to read it, yet.
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Adult Tree (TM): it's like a tree thatwww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ you won't want the children to see!

Date: 09 Aug 2007 16:09:19
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

raylopez99 wrote:
> Essentially solving draughts is an NP hard problem, a variant of the
> traveling salesman problem, which can be 'solved' heuristically, as I
> indicated in another post (reproduced below).
>

usually, when we speak of NP-hard problems, there is some 'n' which can
increase indefinitely. The running time of the solution is given as a
function of n, e.g. T(n).

Where do you find this 'n' in draughts?

Are you perhaps thinking of draughts-variants where the size of the
board increases?

In my world, draughts, chess, and tic-tac-toe are all solvable in
CONSTANT time. Problems that can be solved in constant time are not
usually considered to be NP-hard.

Your milage may vary.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:36:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

raylopez99 <raylopez99@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Essentially solving draughts is an NP hard problem

No, `solving draughts' is not an NP-hard problem or even `essentially'
an NP-hard problem. It is a single instance of a PSPACE-complete
problem. As a single instance, it is solvable in constant time.

> a variant of the traveling salesman problem

Generalized checkers is not `a variant of TSP' unless PSPACE=NP. That
result which would surprise practically every theoretical computer
scientist on the planet.

> which can be 'solved' heuristically, as I indicated in another post
> (reproduced below).

Any problem at all can be `solved' heuristically. That's why we're
not talking about `solving' problems but about solving them.

Next time you want to be patronising and insulting to me, it would be
a good idea to pick a topic that you actually understand.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Gigantic Generic Priest (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of the cloth but it's just
like all the others and huge!

Date: 09 Aug 2007 10:05:57
From: Kerry Liles
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

It doesn't seem to be free (as in beer). When I click on that link, I get a
page recommending I subscribe to AAAS (American Association for the
Advancement of Science). No doubt this is a worthy association, but the
subscription choices are somewhat pricey... They also offer 24-hour access
to this article for a paltry $10US...

Regards,

Kerry Liles
[email only if you must, to kerry dot liles on gmail.com]

"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote in message
news:PBh*kmSRr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> [I've cross-posted this to rgc.misc and rgc.computer but set
> follow-ups to the former, since this isn't about compuer chess as
> such.]
>
> Schaeffer, Burch, Bjornsson, Kishimoto, Mueller, Lake, Lu and
> Sutphen's paper _Checkers is Solved_ (Science, 19th July 2007) is now
> available free online at
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf
>
> I've not had chance to read it, yet.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Adult Tree (TM): it's like a tree
> that
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ you won't want the children to
> see!

Date: 09 Aug 2007 15:26:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

[Again, posted to rgc.misc and rgc.computer with follow-ups set.]

Kerry Liles <KerryLiles@rogers.com > wrote:
> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Schaeffer, Burch, Bjornsson, Kishimoto, Mueller, Lake, Lu and
>> Sutphen's paper _Checkers is Solved_ (Science, 19th July 2007) is now
>> available free online at
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf
>
> It doesn't seem to be free (as in beer). When I click on that link,
> I get a page recommending I subscribe to AAAS (American Association
> for the Advancement of Science).

Oops -- sorry about that. The link I posted worked when I tried it
but I think I've worked out why that was. If you go to

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/publications/solving_checkers.html

and follow the link to the paper, it should work.

I would just like to thank _Science_ for the totally brain-dead idea
of making the article available for free but only if you follow the
correct link.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Portable Moistened Priest (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man of the cloth but it's moist
and you can take it anywhere!

Date: 09 Aug 2007 23:29:52
From: JohnnyT
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Thank you for the link!

Cheers

David Richerby wrote:
> [Again, posted to rgc.misc and rgc.computer with follow-ups set.]
>
> Kerry Liles <KerryLiles@rogers.com> wrote:
>> David Richerby <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Schaeffer, Burch, Bjornsson, Kishimoto, Mueller, Lake, Lu and
>>> Sutphen's paper _Checkers is Solved_ (Science, 19th July 2007) is now
>>> available free online at
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf
>> It doesn't seem to be free (as in beer). When I click on that link,
>> I get a page recommending I subscribe to AAAS (American Association
>> for the Advancement of Science).
>
> Oops -- sorry about that. The link I posted worked when I tried it
> but I think I've worked out why that was. If you go to
>
> http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/publications/solving_checkers.html
>
> and follow the link to the paper, it should work.
>
> I would just like to thank _Science_ for the totally brain-dead idea
> of making the article available for free but only if you follow the
> correct link.
>
>
> Dave.
>

Date: 25 Aug 2007 11:52:24
From: Fred
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:29:52 -0700, JohnnyT <noone@home.com > wrote:

>Thank you for the link!
>
I have tried all the links I can find in these posts and none of them
have worked.

Please tell me which one is working now, if any.

Thanks.

Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:52:53
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

David Richerby wrote:

> Oops -- sorry about that. The link I posted worked when I tried it
> but I think I've worked out why that was. If you go to
>
> http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/publications/solving_checkers.html
>
> and follow the link to the paper, it should work.
>
> I would just like to thank _Science_ for the totally brain-dead idea
> of making the article available for free but only if you follow the
> correct link.
>
>
> Dave.
>

I may be mistaken, but I doubt the journal are making it public. It
might be in that following the link, you actually go via a proxy server
at the university, so your IP appears to be inside the uni.

Date: 09 Aug 2007 18:36:35
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Dave <someplace@nowhere-nice.com > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> I would just like to thank _Science_ for the totally brain-dead
>> idea of making the article available for free but only if you
>> follow the correct link.
>
> I may be mistaken, but I doubt the journal are making it public. It
> might be in that following the link, you actually go via a proxy
> server at the university, so your IP appears to be inside the uni.

It's not possible for a link to change the proxy server: that would
allow an unscupulous site to engage in all kinds of spoofing attacks.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Fluorescent Radio (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ radio but it'll hurt your eyes!

Date: 09 Aug 2007 11:11:27
From: Kerry Liles
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

For the lazy among us, this ought to work:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf?ijkey=jVmVcXy2/NTnY&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

Yes, Kudos to Science for their obtuseness.

"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote in message
news:f3r*eKSRr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
....snip
> Oops -- sorry about that. The link I posted worked when I tried it
> but I think I've worked out why that was. If you go to
>
> http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/publications/solving_checkers.html
>
> and follow the link to the paper, it should work.
>
> I would just like to thank _Science_ for the totally brain-dead idea
> of making the article available for free but only if you follow the
> correct link.
>
>
> Dave.

Date: 09 Aug 2007 16:04:35
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

Kerry Liles wrote:
> For the lazy among us, this ought to work:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf?ijkey=jVmVcXy2/NTnY&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
>
> Yes, Kudos to Science for their obtuseness.
>

_Science_ are not the ones being obtuse here.

--
Kenneth Sloan KennethRSloan@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Date: 09 Aug 2007 16:29:50
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

In article <f9far1$qco$1@registered.motzarella.org >,
Kerry Liles <KerryLiles@rogers.com > wrote:
> For the lazy among us, this ought to work:
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf?ijkey=jVmVcXy2/NTnY&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

Nope, I tried that myself before giving instructions to click on the
link. They actually chech the referer header and only allow you to
view the paper if you followed the link from Schaeffer's web page!

> Yes, Kudos to Science for their obtuseness.

It's more obtuse than you imagined. ;-)

Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Adult Book (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ romantic novel that you won't want
the children to see but it's genuinely
erotic!

Date: 09 Aug 2007 11:47:27
From: Kerry Liles
Subject: Re: Schaeffer's paper online

"David Richerby" <davidr@chiark.greenend.org.uk > wrote in message
news:EJi*7YSRr@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1144079v1.pdf?ijkey=jVmVcXy2/NTnY&keytype=ref&siteid=sci
>
> Nope, I tried that myself before giving instructions to click on the
> link. They actually chech the referer header and only allow you to
> view the paper if you followed the link from Schaeffer's web page!
>
>
>> Yes, Kudos to Science for their obtuseness.
>
> It's more obtuse than you imagined. ;-)
>
>
> Dave.

OMG. Correct! How thoroughly pointless; what cretins.