Enter Your Reply

I am not sure about full aspect of the two comments. I played occasionally in
Duplicate Bridge tournaments as undergrad at Harvard in our Winthrop House
Dining Room. Would that change the test with computers, Duplicate all
playing same hands, unlike Contract?  How could Johnson be so far off? Johnson's column is on Duplicate, and actually the sentence is the only one I lopped off last words:
''The bridge computer programs aren't even close, since the game is so
much harder to program with all the hidden variables and psychological
factors.'' -- J.J. 25.May.2008. Psychological factors at Duplicate in
long tournament, Computer is not yet so advanced maybe to play without
human intervening on behalf. Our task though is to ask, is it not terrible  problem that most of our 3000 Chess games, with programming attention,
Computer can rise soon to the top; so why not start re-designing to deal with that some way? [The same Wikipedia article GG reads also says ''In comparison to computer Chess, computer Bridge is in its infancy. The question whether Bridge-playing programs will reach world-class levels in foreseeable future is not easy to answer.'' Whereas Chess programs the likes of Kramnik already will not play anymore; so it is matter of emphasis, the Bridge 360-385 loss being probably sound defeat, and Johnson's wording about right that ''Computer not close'' to be any time soon.]