Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Brain vs. Computer: Place Your Bets

Posted by timothy on from the 20-on-the-computer dept.

dev_null_ziggy writes: "CNN reports that the current chess guru is going up against a supercomputer, amusingly titled 'Deep Fritz.' The match is scheduled for October, and the current champion, Vladimir Kramnik, stands to win $1 Million dollars if he wins. Of course, since he'll be snagging $800k for a draw, and $600k for a loss ... I'll give two to one odds on the machine."

3 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Deep Blue 2? by Dmitry+Skylarov · · Score: -1, Troll
    Haven't we already seen this match before? And didn't we already learn the outcome? Look, to paraphrase Tony Kornheiser, every single possible game of chess has been played before. There are a finite number of moves that can be made. Even my 800MHz Athlon and 40GB disk can probably store and compute every chess game possible. When you're playing against a supercomputer, you're playing an opponent with knowledge of every game every played, and can predict every possible outcome of a move within seconds. There's simply no way, other than luck, that a human will beat the next Deep Blue at chess.

    I'd spend the time before the match looking for four-leafed clovers, mate.

    --

    ----
    Please, I are begging you! To save Dmitry from teh jail!

  2. First Fist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I can fit an entire chess set in my rectum. What can you fit?

  3. Re:Sidenotes to the Deep Blue - Kasparov Match by Skuto · · Score: 0, Troll

    The same uninformed nonsense again.

    >Deep Blue wasn't a very good chess program,
    >compared to other programs like Fritz, however it
    >had a lot of power

    Do you have any EVIDENCE that Fritz is a better
    chessprogram than Deep Blue, speed not included?

    (You don't, because it's false. Also Deep Blue
    made specific tradeoffs based on its speed. And
    they could include all the knowledge they wanted
    without a speed penalty because they had hardware
    to play with. Fritz can't do that, and hence
    it has to make compromises and stay dumber)

    >And it had something else, it was designed
    >completely to counter Kasparov's style, against
    >any other opponent it would have played much
    >weaker.

    Do you have any EVIDENCE to support that?
    Kasparov claimed this, but there is no reason
    to believe it's true. He claimed a human made
    several of the moves in the games as well.

    --
    GCP