New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Checkers Computer Can't Be Beat

It took more than 18 years, but computer scientists have completely solved the game of chess, with a program that can be tied but never beaten. Steve Mirsky reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


July 20, 2007  Checkers Computer Can't Be Beat

It’s checkmate for checkers.  The 5,000 year old game has been completely solved, and a checkers-playing computer called Chinook cannot be beaten.  That’s according to University of Alberta computer scientists publishing in the latest issue of the journal Science.  

The researchers spent almost two decades going through the 500 billion billion possible checkers positions, which is still an infinitesimally small fraction of the number of chess positions, by the way.  The checkers effort included top players, who helped the research team program checkers rules of thumb into software that categorized moves as successful or unsuccessful.  Then the researchers let the program run, on an average of 50 computers daily.  Some days, the program ran on 200 machines.  While the researchers monitored progress and tweaked the program accordingly.  In fact, Chinook beat humans to win the checkers world championship back in 1994. 

(Computer voice): But it had not yet become perfect.

That process is now done, and the Chinook program has developed into a database that knows the optimal move in any possible checkers situation.  If a human opponent plays a perfect game, he or she can only hope for a tie. 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe