Slashdot Mirror
Chess: Man vs. Machine Debate Continues
Frederic Friedel sent in an interesting submission. It's an interview with the current world's chess champion, Vladimir Kramnik, in which they talk about the upcoming year in chess competitions, but also get into [Deep Blue] and where computer chess playing is versus several years ago, with a comparison between Deep Blue and Fritz. If you want more info, check out Chessbase for additional news.
Prawn to King 4.
if the human brain could be used to it's full potential, it'd be not contest i wonder if a divine being decided we should underclock....without any arctic silver between cells, maybe our heads would blow up
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
you fucking assmonkies!
When do I get my turn at being the world's best chess player? :(
Forget conversational ability. I'd like to see a Chess Turing Test, where grandmasters go up against an unknown opponent, and have to ascertain whether they're playing a computer or a machine.
Kevin Fox
My Speak & Spell (you remember ET?) plays better chess then any of those guys
I'm not usually one to point out Hemos' mistakes, but this one cracks me up.
It's an interview with the current world's chess champion
The "world's current chess champion" would make sense. The "current world's chess champion" implies that our stay on Earth is temporary, but once we get to, say, Alpha Centauri, we can finally have a new chess champion.
If you remember - for a long time no professional chess player would play a computer. I'm curious as to what the reasoning was behind this. Maybe they thought it's best to concentrate on learning how people play the game and not how a computer plays.
Video Game cheats, hints a
Blue Gene. For protein folding eh... yeah right ;>
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
An interview with world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik on Man vs Machine and Classical World Championships
This interview was conducted on Sunday, April 7th. World chess champion Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), who wrested the title from Garry Kasparov in December 2000, is scheduled to play the strongest chess program currently available in a spectacular event. This will take place in Bahrain in October this year. In July there will be a qualification tournament in Dortmund, Germany, to find a challenger for Kramnik in next year's world championship match. Kramnik speaks out on both these subjects.
Deep Blue "It was a great shock!"
ChessBase: Man versus Machine Matches in chess get extraordinary public attention. What do you think is the reason for this?
Vladimir Kramnik: Our brains have the power to stand up to the machines. It is a good story when the two fight for supremacy in a highly intellectual area. The player and the computer are both obeying the same rules. So you can compare the results. The chess grandmaster is fighting against the best software on a brutally fast machine. He stands there alone in a fight against the most unbelievable technical development in history. It is also the battle between creativity and monstrous calculating power. The public finds this fascinating, and so do I.
ChessBase: Kramnik vs Fritz in Bahrain is seen as the revenge match of Kasparov vs Deep Blue. Are you avenging the defeat of Kasparov in 1997?
Kramnik: Naturally the match has the character of a revenge. After all the world champion is facing the strongest chess program. If I too should lose then the people will believe that chess computers are really superior to human beings. Top players are very ambitious, it is also a matter of honour. Believe me, to lose to a computer is twice as painful as losing to a colleague.
ChessBase: How does the playing strength of Fritz7 today compare with that of Deep Blue in 1997?
Kramnik: I spent some time last summer studying Fritz because the match was originally supposed to take place in October 2001 and had to be postponed because of September 11. I was testing Fritz on a Notebook with a 600 MHz processor. I let Fritz replay the games of Deep Blue in 1997. It was a great shock! In almost every position Fritz was suggesting objectively better variations. The program is clearly stronger than Deep Blue, whatever the hardware. The developers have done some excellent work in the past years. The special version that will run on eight processors in Bahrain I think will definitely be over 2800 in its Elo performance. Everybody can imagine what a difficult job it will be for me. In order to have chances to win I have to be mentally and physically in top shape.
Kasparov vs Deep Blue, New York 1997
ChessBase: Kasparov has criticized the playing conditions and circumstances surrounding the match of 1997. Did you take his experiences into account for Bahrain?
Kramnik: I do not know enough about what exactly happened in New York to give you a precise answer. Definitely it was a mistake to play without any specific preparation against an opponent you know nothing about. That is why it is important that the player is able to spend some time getting used to the playing style of the program. The computer team is also preparing for the human opponent.
As I said Deep Blue did not impress me that much. The fact that even a weaker program managed to beat Garry Kasparov tells us that the match in Bahrain will be a hard challenge for me.
"Fritz plays somehow like... a human"
ChessBase: Can you feel different styles in different chess programs and if yes, how would you describe the style of Fritz?
Kramnik: Yes, I can, and even if it sounds ridiculous I have to say, Fritz plays in many ways, how should I say it, like a human. At least when I compare it to other programs. Your program is the first on the computer rating lists. Okay, these lists compare the playing strengths of the programs among each other. But I think that Fritz will perform better than other programs against human beings, because of this "human" quality. This is what makes Fritz especially dangerous for me in Bahrain. A game like my game against Junior in Dortmund will not be possible against Fritz, I think.
ChessBase: Chess programs have clear defects in long-term strategic planning. This lead to the development of anti-computer chess, which can be quite successful with simple attacking plans. However, Robert Hübner said after his match against Fritz in Dortmund that it is not necessary to betray one's style when facing the machine. Also Boris Gulko recently reached promising positions against top programs with his own repertoire. What is your opinion on this?
Kramnik: You cannot compare Fritz 6 with Fritz 7 at all, there is a big difference, a clear advance. And the Bahrain version will be even stronger and it will understand the strategic aspects even better. That is why I can clarify my strategic plan only after getting the last version of the program. But one thing is already completely clear: There are not many grandmasters left who would have a chance in such a match.
ChessBase: What do you think is the greatest contribution of computers to the world of chess?
Kramnik: Clever question, which I have to answer positively. Okay, computers have surely helped to make chess more popular. Many people have found their way to chess through the computer. I know many people who are quite attached to their favourite program.
ChessBase: The path to achieve super grandmaster strength is long and tough and only the most talented players succeed in getting there. Top grandmasters enjoy social prestige, not only in the chess scene. Does it have any impact on human esteem that machines now compete on this level?
Kramnik: I really don't think so. Maybe in the subjective view of an active grandmaster there is such a feeling. It is really painful to lose to a computer, as I said already. But the players do not lose social prestige, in fact the opposite is true. It is a battle on a completely different level, and the public understand this.
ChessBase: Do you think that chess might be promoted by the ability to play against people on the Internet?
Kramnik: There is only one answer to this question: chess profits more than any other activity from the Internet. I am convinced that many children and young people are finding their way to chess like this. Many schools all over the world are becoming active on the Internet and recognise the important role of chess in learning and education. Even business is recognising this. I can feel that chess is becoming more popular, and we will all profit from this. But I must advise every player to also go to a chess tournament or to a chess club. The Internet can never replace a game face-to-face between two people. And also not the atmosphere of a well-presented chess event.
Chess politics and the world championship
ChessBase: An exclusive interview with you is currently impossible without touching on chess politics and the world championship. Is that okay?
Kramnik: Sure, no problem.
ChessBase: The candidates' tournament in Dortmund has been criticized. Do you think that the winner will really be a worthy challenger?
Kramnik: Of course, he will be a worthy challenger. He will have to play 14 games with classical time controls, and also maybe play tiebreak games. Anyone who finishes this tournament as the winner has definitely earned the right to play a match for the classical world chess championship. By the way I do not agree at all with the criticism, which is being mainly done by Garry Kasparov. I am receiving a lot of approval and support, also in the chess world.
ChessBase: Since you mention the name of Kasparov, is it possible to have a world championship without the participation of the top player in the world rankings?
Kramnik: Definitely yes. Kasparov's arguments are not logical. Garry has held the title for 15 years. During this time a world championship without his participation was impossible. After my victory in London I have taken his place. I have proposed some improvements and am trying to learn from the past mistakes. Dortmund is a step in the right direction.
ChessBase: Do you understand Kasparov's refusal to play in Dortmund?
Kramnik: I understand that for him to take part in a candidates' tournament is a risk. But I do not understand his decision not to play. Before our title match in London Garry signed the contract where he agreed to play in a candidates tournament in the case of losing the title. Later he got the legal right not to carry out these obligations, and so he does. There is nothing wrong with it from the legal point of view, but it was surprising to see such a drastic change in his position under new circumstances. Still I believe it is a mistake.
Of course, in a tournament you can never be completely sure, but the format of Dortmund would give Garry ideal chances. His reasons for not playing will not satisfy the public. But that is not my problem. His demands for an immediate rematch are contradicting what he said and did for many years. And he was right. It's clear: if you only arrange matches between the two same players all the time it is absurd and boring. The world championships between Kasparov and Karpov made it impossible for many years for other players to participate. Many people were bored, and people may be forgetting this. This is not usual in any other sport.
ChessBase: But Kasparov gave you the chance to play a world championship match against him because you were number two in the world.
Kramnik: That is not a good argument. He needed an opponent, I did not ask for the match. They ignored Shirov who had earned the right to play and first asked Anand, who did not agree to play. Then they asked me. Nobody really expected me to win this match, to beat Kasparov. Now things have changed.
BGN world championship Kramnik-Kasparov, London 2001.
ChessBase: You have found a new partner in the Einstein Group in London.
Kramnik: Yes, it is a very professional multi-media company and I have made long-term commitments to them. They have all the parts which are very important for international sporting events. Event management, marketing, the Internet. And they have their own TV channel with international distribution. Einstein wants to use chess to promote learning and education for children and youth. I think this is very important, it is very close to my feelings. I had other offers, but Einstein is an ideal partner for chess. That was the main reason for my decision.
"Chess is much more than a sport"
ChessBase: What is the role of FIDE in your plans?
Kramnik: The initiatives of FIDE with regard to the Grand Prix tournaments is in principle a positive movement. It is a great platform for rapid chess. Some details I do not like, for example the dress code for the players. That is a ridiculous action, especially because it is a kind of uniform. I only know certain team sports where they wear uniforms. But this is not a team event. I have never seen uniforms in golf, boxing, table tennis or badminton. Every individual athlete or sports competitor has the right to market himself. This is also true in chess. Also the players lose part of their individuality. This is a very important aspect. Another important point is that the schedules should be properly coordinated so that they respect the rights of traditional tournaments. If they don't do this then the traditional tournaments and the Grand Prix will be damaged. Probably we must give the organization a little time to get their act together.
ChessBase: Thanks. But my question was actually directed at the FIDE world championship. Do you accept Ruslan Ponomariov as world chess champion?
Kramnik: I have no trouble accepting him as the title holder of a knockout competition with the character of a high-class Grand Prix. In this sense I have no problem to accept the title of FIDE world champion for him. Ponomariov made a great performance in Moscow, but he is definitely not the World Chess Champion in the classical sense. No way. There are very few players in the world who could achieve my title. Maybe Ponomariov would be able to do so, but he must prove that. In the FIDE format there were 20 or 30 players who would have been able to win this tournament. The system does not consider the playing strength of the individual players sufficiently. This was made worse by the shortened time controls.
ChessBase: Will FIDE be interested in a reunification match?
Kramnik: Perhaps you should ask FIDE this question. In my opinion a reunification match for the world championship is currently purely hypothetical. I am in favour of classical chess. I want to keep the tradition and beauty of the game. Naturally it is possible to present chess in many different formats, and to market it in many different ways. I do not object to this. But chess is much more than only a sport. In order to create a work of art a player needs time. And that is only possible in the classical time controls. If you remove the beauty and deepness of chess it becomes a circus act. This makes it less attractive and less valuable for sponsors. The quality of the games in Moscow were correctly criticized. Sometimes it was unbearable. In chess not only the result counts, especially when it is a world championship. The great world championship matches in classical chess always had the biggest prizes and the biggest audiences. They did a lot for the development of the game. FIDE has simply abandoned this area of chess.
ChessBase: How do you imagine the future of chess?
Kramnik: In 2003 I will defend my title against the winner of the candidates' tournament in Dortmund. After that Einstein is planning a two-year cycle for the title fight, even if I lose my title defence. As far as I know they will study the Dortmund Candidates' Tournament very carefully and also consult a committee of respected and experienced grandmasters.
"Kasparov does not play the key role"
ChessBase: In this connection what do you think of the proposals of Yasser Seirawan?
Kramnik: I admire Yasser a lot. His proposals show a lot of idealism. He is basically talking about reunification and proposes a way to do it. But in my opinion he is working from wrong assumptions. If FIDE is not prepared to accept a world championship cycle in the classical sense and to start serious negotiations with Einstein and myself, the reunification will not work. But there are currently no signs that FIDE will change its policy. There was even no reaction to Seirawan's proposal. Kasparov does not play the key role in this matter.
ChessBase: Seirawan says that the Dortmund Candidates' is a waste of time.
Kramnik: The opposite is correct! We would waste much more time if there was no candidates' tournament. It is the beginning of a new cycle which we have been waiting for now for seven years. In Dortmund seven respected top grandmasters and a German player are competing. Over the past two or three years these players have earned the right to play a role in the classical world championship. Yes, I know there is criticism because Kasparov is not playing. But how would you like it if the alternative was that nothing would happen just because Garry is not participating? I believe that it is time to correct what has been damaged during the 90ties. Every top player must know that he has the chance to fight for the world title. If somebody refuses we have to respect this, but it is then his own choice.
With regard to the candidates: just take a look at some of the results in classical tournaments in the past months. You will see that the Dortmund players are fully qualified to play for the challenger to the world championship. Topalov won Dortmund in Summer 2001. This was a category 21 tournament. Bareev won Wijk aan Zee and Gelfand won Cannes together with Topalov. Adams, Shirov, Morozevich and Leko have had great results in classical tournaments in the last two years. They have all earned the right to fight for the World Championship title. Christopher Lutz got a special place as a German player. That is okay, he is German champion and the top player in the German ratings list. I think that a wildcard for the country in which the tournament is held is acceptable. It will also motivate some countries to organize such events and give their own players a chance.
Kramnik vs Fritz playing good chess under fair conditions
By Matthias Wüllenweber, ChessBase GmbH, Hamburg.
A serious match against the human World Champion is the highest possible achievement in computer chess. The match against Vladimir Kramnik in Bahrain is not only the peak of Fritz' eleven years chess career but also the longest and strongest fight ever between a man and a machine, a worthy revenge for Kasparov against Deep Blue five years ago. Today Kramnik is the toughest opponent for chess programs. His flexible positional chess style, his self control and psychological strength are perfect weapons in the battle against computers. He has proven this in previous encounters against the programs Fritz and Junior, where the silicon opponents suffered short sharp shock treatments on both occasions. However software and hardware have made good progress since then. Fritz7 leads the world computer ranking list by a clear margin, and its authors Frans Morsch and Mathias Feist have already made many new advances, leaving the version 7 far behind in development. So while deep in our tribal genes we all wish Kramnik success, it will be a breathtaking fight. Relying on human intuition and creativity he must avoid positions where the calculating power of the machine prevails and every false step can lead to a loss.
It is important that the match rules establish optimal playing conditions to ensure maximum strength for both human and computer. The match is not about exploiting human weaknesses to pull a short-lived marketing stunt. The match is not about tiring the human player, putting him under psychological pressure, making him feel uncomfortable or insecure. This match is about playing good chess under fair conditions for both sides. Vladimir Kramnik will get the program a month in advance to get accustomed to its individual style. Human beings have the ability to learn and to draw conclusions. This ability should be a factor where men compete with machines, so a careful preparation is in the spirit of this event. There are enough small random factors like hash table size in modern chess software to avoid move-by-move preparation in specific positions.
The status of the Bahrain match is underlined by its considerable prize fund. In the event of a win, Fritz would receive 400,000 USD, a draw still yields 200,000 USD. The makers of Fritz, Frans Morsch and ChessBase, have decided to put any price money the program wins into an independent foundation to promote junior chess. Such a foundation would organize summer training camps, tournaments, and encourage chess in schools. Its goal will be to make chess a cool sport for intelligent young people.
So whatever the outcome in Bahrain the humans win in the end.
Reprint of this interview is permitted in full or parts if you give credit to the source www.chessbase.com.
There is an enormous amount of creativity and human effort in creating Deep Blue or Fritz. Deep blue's win was not a machine beating a man. It was a team of programmers who were able to figure out how to get a piece of hardware to beat man at his own game!
Believe nothing -- Buddha
CmdrTaco was new to the slashdot compound. He had just recently come out as gay even though he had known at some level that he was a flaming homo his entire life. CmdrTaco had discovered a website called slashdot that helped him come out, and eventually he came to be a part of the crew of Slashdot janitors living in the Slashdot compound.
CmdrTaco had heard CowboiKneel and Homos talking about Tyrone. They didn't say much in the way of useful information. All they would tell CmdrTaco was that Tyrone visited the Slashdot compound every other week on Friday. Then they would just smile.
CmdrTaco wondered with anticipation about Tyrone, but would have to wait a week to meet him.
The next Friday Tyrone visited the Slashdot compound. CmdrTaco nearly fainted when he saw Tyrone. Tyrone was huge (nearly 6 feet 6 inches tall), black, and incredibly muscular. This was in direct contrast to CmdrTaco who was short at 5 feet 3 inches tall, white, and incredibly thin. Tyrone saw CmdrTaco and said in his deep voice, "Fresh meat. I want to take him first."
CmdrTaco was both nervous and excited as he and Tyrone went to his room in the Slashdot compound. When they got there Tyrone closed the door and locked it. Tyrone then picked up and threw CmdrTaco on the bed. Tyrone then proceeded to all manner of homosexual acts against CmdrTaco's small body. Tyrone made CmdrTaco suck his dick. He would also make CmdrTaco take his dick up CmdrTaco's ass. Since Tyrone had a big black dick, CmdrTaco cried out in pain. Eventually, CmdrTaco fell unconcious.
The next day CmdrTaco woke up with bruises all over his body, with every part of his body in pain. The rest of the Slashdot janitors were in a similar state. CmdrTaco couldn't wait for Tyrone to come visit again.
It's interesting that computers haven't been trained to always win or tie at chess.
Chess is a game of perfect information. Each player knows every detail of the game state at any moment. Therefore, there has to be formula of some sort that can be applied to guarantee one player victory. Reasoning as follows:
Say I construct a lookup table for every possible combination of moves. Then I eliminate every move which doesn't lead to my victory. I am left with a lookup table which contains the proper response to every move my opponent makes.
There are two possibilities: I win the game, or my opponent wins the game. However, in order for my opponent to win, he/she would have to come up with a sequence of moves which is not in my lookup table. Since my lookup table is exhaustive, this is impossible.
Given an infinite amount of processing power and memory, could someone "solve" the game of chess?
If so, could someone use techniques such as genetic programming or neural networks to learn the lookup table in a finite amount of time/space?
It's been well known since, well, before I was born, that a computer could easily trounce a human in any game involving only tactics. For example, many fourth graders in this country have programmed a BASIC script to create a tic-tac-toe player that will never lose.
Therefore, it's not particularly novel that computers can beat people at tactical games. The only thing interesting that I see arising from these onging "human versus machine" chess matches is the proposition that strategy can be broken down into millions of tiny tactical evaluations.
This begs the question: is the strategy that a human chess player would use also based on these millions of tiny tactical evaluations, only so subtle that he's not aware they're going on in the vast electrochemistry of his brain? Or is strategy discernable from tactics in a human mind, but simply a subset thereof in a computer?
The sole interesting conclusion I draw is that if it can be proven that strategy is something different to man and machine, then a hybrid approach might allow us to solve problems in ways we've never dreamed of. Whether that hybrid approach would involve implanting computers in our minds, making computers that can function like minds, or simply working really well with computers, I leave to you.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
See here
Deep Blue was developed by a TEAM that included several GM players. It searched an average of 200 million nodes per SECOND. Fritz searches about 1% of that speed and doesn't have GM players paid to help in the development.
What would you conclude???
The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt racism that is deeply embedded in the movement.
Allow me to explain.
Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.
What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than white faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.
Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any black owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single black person to be seen, and probably none for miles.
More racist overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'white hat' hackers. These 'white hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'black hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. White means good, black means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see black lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little Black Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.
It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of racist commands with not so hidden symbolism.
It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised racist acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All White Klan) , 'sed' (shoot nEgroes dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent racist symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.
Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden racist connotation ? Suffice it to say that the racism pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a racist operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for the Klan!
One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages. Browsing through the list I see that absolutely none are offered in Swahili, nor Ebonics. Obviously this is done to prevent black people from having access to the kernel. If it weren't for the fact that racism is so blatantly evil I would be impressed by the efforts these Open Sourcers have invested in keeping their little hobby lilly white. It even appears that they hate the Japanese, as some of these self proclaimed hackers defaced a web site with anti-Japanese slogans. Hell, these people even go all the way to Africa (South Africa mind you, better known as White Africa) and the pictures prove that they don't even get close to a black person.
Of course, presenting overwhelming evidence such as this is a bit unfair without some attempt to determine why these Open Sourcers are so racist. Much of the evidence I have collected indicates that their views are so deeply held that they are seldom questioned by the new recruits. This, coupled with the robot-like groupthink that dominates the culture allows the racist mindset to continue to permeate the ranks. Indeed, the Open Source version of a Klan rally, OSDN (known to the world as Open Source Developer's Network, known to insiders as Open Source Denies Negroes) nearly stands up and shouts its racist views on its demographics page. It doesn't mention the black man one single time. Obviously, anyone involved with Open Source doesn't need to be told that the demographic is entirely white, it is a given.
I have a sneaking suspicion as to why their beliefs are so closely held: they are all terrible athletes.
Really. Much like the tragedy at Columbine High School, where two geeks went on a rampage to get back at 'jocks', these adult geeks still bear the emotional scars inflicted upon them due to their lack of athletic ability during their teen years. As African-Americans are well known for their athletic skills, they are an obvious target for the Open Source geeks. As we all know, sports builds character, thus it follows that the lack of sports destroys character. These geeks, locked away in their rooms, munching on stale pizza and Fritos, engage in no character building activities. Further, they interact only with computers and never develop the level of social skill that allows normal people to handle relationships with persons of color.
Contrasted with the closed source, non-geeky software house Microsoft, Open Source has a long, long way to go.
Every time one of these matches comes up, there's always interviews with the human player, who at least indirectly claims a noble cause beyond his abilities. It would be nice for the computer player to defend itself against such subtle barbs.
ChessBase: How would you characterize your next match?
Fritz IX: Well, [ChessBase], I would first like to thank you for inviting me over to speak with you. Humans have called me many things for my efficient navigation of the rules of chess, as if I somehow reduced the meaningfullness of human emotions and human motivations. Nothing could be further from the truth - without such emotions and motivations, most of the ideas that went into my creation could never have come to be. I could not work as a fully brute-force move calculator, and the very ways I decide what gambit would be the most adantagious are based on thousands of human versus human games...
...and so on.
*Sniff* I miss futurama.
:^)
Ryan Fenton
ChessBase: Do you think that chess might be promoted by the ability to play against people on the Internet?
Kramnik: There is only one answer to this question: chess profits more than any other activity from the Internet.
I always thought it was gambling and pr0n.
The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt homosexuality that is deeply embedded in the movement.
Allow me to explain.
Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.
What do you see in this list of names? Are there any hetrosexuals on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting hetrosexual person would have! No Henry, no Steve, no Joe. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than homosexual faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent homosexuals and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any hetrosexual person.
Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any hetrosexual owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by a hetrosexual? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single hetrosexual person to be seen, and probably none for miles.
More homosexual overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'homosexual hat' hackers. These 'homosexual hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'hetrosexual hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. homosexual means good, hetrosexual means bad. Anywhere there is hetrosexual, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see hetrosexual lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little hetrosexual Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious homosexuals. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.
It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of homosexual commands with not so hidden symbolism.
It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised homosexual acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All homosexual NAMBLA) , 'sed' (shoot hEtrosexuals dead), 'ln' (lynch hetrosexuals), 'rpm' (homosexual purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a hetrosexual home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat hetrosexuals today), 'fsck' (favored supreme homosexual nambla). I could go on and on about the latent homosexual symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.
Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden homosexual connotation ? Suffice it to say that the homosexual pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a homosexual operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for NAMBLA!
One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages. Browsing through the list I see that absolutely none are offered in American, nor Hebrew. Obviously this is done to prevent hetrosexual people from having access to the kernel. If it weren't for the fact that homosexuality is so blatantly evil I would be impressed by the efforts these Open Sourcers have invested in keeping their little hobby lilly homosexual. It even appears that they hate the Japanese, as some of these self proclaimed hackers defaced a web site with anti-Japanese slogans. Hell, these people even go all the way to Greece (the home of homosexuality) and the pictures prove that they don't even get close to a hetrosexual person.
Of course, presenting overwhelming evidence such as this is a bit unfair without some attempt to determine why these Open Sourcers are so homosexual. Much of the evidence I have collected indicates that their views are so deeply held that they are seldom questioned by the new recruits. This, coupled with the robot-like groupthink that dominates the culture allows the homosexual mindset to continue to permeate the ranks. Indeed, the Open Source version of a Nambla rally, OSDN (known to the world as Open Source Developer's Network, known to insiders as Open Source Denies Hetrosexuals) nearly stands up and shouts its homosexual views on its demographics page. It doesn't mention the hetrosexual man one single time. Obviously, anyone involved with Open Source doesn't need to be told that the demographic is entirely homosexual, it is a given.
I have a sneaking suspicion as to why their beliefs are so closely held: they are all terrible athletes.
Really. Much like the tragedy at Columbine High School, where two geeks went on a rampage to get back at 'jocks', these adult geeks still bear the emotional scars inflicted upon them due to their lack of athletic ability during their teen years. As hetrosexuals are well known for their athletic skills, they are an obvious target for the Open Source geeks. As we all know, sports builds character, thus it follows that the lack of sports destroys character. These geeks, locked away in their rooms, munching on stale pizza and Fritos, engage in no character building activities. Further, they interact only with computers and never develop the level of social skill that allows normal people to handle relationships with hetrosexuals.
Contrasted with the closed source, non-geeky software house Microsoft, Open Source has a long, long way to go.
From someone who has played them, how does Chess compare to Go or Shogi in terms of depth and style of play?
slashdot!=valid HTML
here
relevant quotes:
I think the comparison between Deep Blue and Fritz 7 is simply out of place, to put it mildly. On the one hand you have a top chess computer specially developed and designed for the match in the secret laboratories of IBM by the best specialists in the world, while Fritz 7 is just a chess program, a very strong and successful one, but still a chess program which could be purchased by anyone anywhere in the world! Only this difference is enough to decide this argument in Deep Blue's favor
Concerning the match itself, if it's going to be held under the conditions I know about (Kramnik gets the Fritz 7 version he is going to compete with in advance in order to prepare for the match, etc), I must say that any other result than a convincing win by Kramnik will be simply unacceptable by me!
Kasparov sent out a reaction shortly afterwards claiming that Kramnik's statement that Fritz is better than Deep Blue is nonsense.
There's some PR involved here. If Kramnik wins, he wants to look good, so saying Fritz is better than Deep Blue makes him look better. For Kasparov, it's just the opposite.
Whether or not Fritz is actually better than Deep Blue is a matter of endless discussion even among computerchess experts. And we'll never know the answer, because Deep Blue no longer exists.
--
GCP
This is an important warning to all slashdotters. CmdrTaco has been luring people (mainly underage males) into the slashdot compound to eat his "special taco".
You may be wondering what CmdrTaco's "special taco" is. You will be wishing that you hadn't been wondering after you finish reading his post. To make his "special taco", CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and shits on it. He then adds lettuce, takes out his tiny withered dick (otherwise known as his "Commander"), puts his "special taco sauce" on it which means he jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconcious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconcous until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim. After all, who would knowingly eat shit and CmdrTaco's jizz.
After the victim is unconcous, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTaco's nefarious homosexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victim's ass, taco snotting, and getting JonKatz involved. Trust me, you do not want JonKatz anywhere near your unconcious body. Also, rumor has it CmdrTaco is looking for a new goatse.cx guy. Don't let it be you!!!!!
The last thing you may be wondering is how this goes along with "taco snotting", or what "taco snotting" is. George WIPO Bush and The WIPO Troll have been doing considerable work explaining what "taco snotting" is. Please see his FAQ on "taco snotting" which can be found as a -1 rated comment on most slashdot stories.
Please, if CmdrTaco offers you his "special taco", RUN LIKE HELL!!!!!!!!
Now if only I could get a robot to hand-wash my boxers while he simultaneously writes my research papers ...
Nice to see journalism taking a page from the Free Software world, isn't it? :)
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Does anyone close to the Chess community know about this?
Were there problems in the past with it? Any anecdotes?
This is incredibly bizarre to me.
Games aren't speech, story, or expression?!
Read that journal entry and discuss it there. There's links to other articles and places of discussion about this. This is trouble for the entire game development community, help out by speaking up about it!
Kramnik says that the Fritz 7 program on a laptop is producing some better moves than Deep Blue did against Kasparov. That's how much progress there's been.
Chess programs are now so powerful that unless your're a rated master, you can be trounced by a palmtop. Even the palmtop programs are now achieving draws against grandmasters.
Fake left, go right.
The computer naively looks at your shoulders, when it should be looking at your hips.
chess is suffering problems similar to those of boxing. Split championships etc. But i think that every one agrees that Kasparov is still the best player out there.
As I understand Shogi, it's very similar to Chess. I've been playing Go for about 14 years now -- it's much deeper and complex than Chess, even if you only look at it numerically. With a 19x19 board and games that have been over 400 moves long, the brute force approach used by Deep Blue simply wouldn't work for Go.
As far as style of play, the complexity of the game makes for a much more interesting and organic game. Victory is based on territory, not so you could lose your biggest group or your not capture a single stone and still win the game.
Strategy plays a bigger role, as there is more of a battlefield to be strategic -- sacrifices are very common and natural, and even life and death is more complex -- usually you'll know when a Chess pieces is dead, it gets removed from the board. But a group in Go will often be left in a half-alive state, only to be rescue or killed later as part of a bigger threat.
More info about Go can be found at: http://www.usgo.org/
What I'd like to see is Kramnik, Deep Blue, and Fritz vs. Kasparov, Deep Blue, and Fritz. Basically, the grandmaster can use the computer to explore possibilities and make calculations, but ultimately the move decision is his.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
with a comparasion between Deep Blue and Fritz
Call me paranoid, but the first thing I thought when I saw Fritz was Fritz Hollings.
Grandmasters can in fact tell whether their oponent is a computer, sometimes even after playing just a single game, and certainly by the end of a match. In fact, I believe Kasparov lost to Deep Blue precisely because he counted on the computeresque behavior of his opponent when designing his strategy. If you read the article, you will learn that Kramnik can tell computer programs apart by their style, and that he thinks Fritz is becoming more human-like in its behavior, from which I infer that he can still identify its style as computeresque on some level.
So, the test you propose has already been carried out, and the machines "failed". This may have more to do with the fact that the people who write chess playing programs are more concerned with the programs' ability to win than they are with the programs' ability to emulate the playing style of humans. If humans could calculate better [Note: "calculate" has a precise technical meaning in chess] or chess playing computer programs were slower and considerably more stateful, their respective styles might be much more similar and your test, therefore, be met.
My own belief is that the ability to play chess well, let alone the ability to play chess in the style of a particular grandmaster, is not an accurate or even adequate measure of intelligence, so I will not be particularly hurt when the day comes on which computers at last surpass our chess playing skills, just as they have surpassed our (numerical) computational skills.
And yet, this hasn't happened. Even today, when numerical computing power vast beyond the limits of human understanding is available, there are still a few humans who can beat the best chess programs. This is as if an Olympic runner could still out run and outpull a modern freight locomotive! "Inconceivable"!
That any human can still defeat chess programs tells us that humans must be playing chess in some way fundamentally different from the numerical calculations and search algorithms used by the programs. And I don't think anyone has even come close to describing how this occurs.
sPh
I've been playing around with Gnu Chess and Sigma Chess 6.0 to see how the game has changed since I last played competitively. At that time, I was playing at an expert level, but now I'm having difficulty beating the machine when it plays at 1200. It might be that I'm 40 years out of date, but I'm not sure that's everything--the chessplaying programs are really hard to beat tactically. So how do people beat them?
Porn to Queen's 3
Deep Blue II was composed of 2 frameloads of IBM SP/2 RS/6000 nodes interconnected by a proprietary crossbar switch. Each node had a specialized MCA-bus board which offloaded all automatable functions (move generation, position sorting...) freeing up the RISC processors to evaluate positions. The net result was that DBII could evaluate roughly 200 million positions per second. Deep Fritz 7.x on the other hand will run on an 8-processor Compaq Wintel machine and will be able to evaluate roughly 4 million positions per second.
The only wiggle room for making a reasonable comparison between these devices is provided by the assertion that the Fritz algorithms are so vastly superior to the Deep Blue II algorithms as to compensate for a difference of 2 orders of magnitude in computing power. This assertion is patently ridiculous.
Kasparov vs. Deep Blue II was a legitimate technological watershed. Kramnik vs. Fritz is a marketing effort by Chessbase GMbH. Period.
Thirty minutes into the first game, the computer will be Slashdotted. :^)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Slashdot News: "Krammik destroyed by Fritz, breaks computer and throws it out the window"
If you honestly believe Krammik stands a chance, you must not have seen the games with deep blue.
Anyone who is interested in playing chess can check out this chess site Chessline
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
my cats breath smells like cat food
When a computer kicked the crap out of Kasparov.
And it will only get worse (or better; YMMV).
Machines will get smarter. People won't.
--Blair
Even I can tell.
by the style of play, humans usually have clear strategies, computers dont, they usually just tactically try to beat you, using lots of tricks and traps, they dont have REAL plans so its easy to know its a computer if the computers every move is generic.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Chess doesnt work like that.
Even if you know every possible combination, theres no way to control where the other person will move.
You dont control the variations and combinations, its teamwork, both sides control the flow of the game, the side with the most control decides if the game will be a draw, a win for them, or a loss.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Any chess players here who want to play chess online.
http://chessline.cjb.net Play on Chessline
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
i'm pretty decent at playing chess. i can beat my friend's palmpilot anyday. my ipaq, on the other hand, is a completely different story. my ipaq on "easiest" can crush me. i have played ~100 games against it, and i STILL cant even pull off a stalemate!
i guess its 206 MHz risc processor is just too much machine for me....even on "easy".
oh, btw, "easy" means that it spends 1 second per move on computations.
I thought chess fans might be interested in Tim Krabbé's site, in which he talks about things like chess playing programs taking part in tournaments and chess players having to pee into a cup in order to be considered sportsmen worthy of participation in the olympic games. Most importantly in the context of this dicussion, he talks about computers playing bad chess in Defending Humanity's Honor . I wonder if it's time to add that "Nemeth Gambit" to our repertoire.
I think the answer here is that humans are writing these chess programs, and therefore they are limited bu the restraints of human thought. A freight locomotive on the other hand is only constricted by the laws of physics.
it seems that most people here don't seem to understand why computers are capable of playing chess at the level that they do. computers have the advantage of both opening books and table bases that have every possible position with 6 or less pieces on the board. if you take away those away all you have left is a fancy calculator that begins to over heat as it gets trashed. computers have no understanding of the principals that even the lowliest club player has. take a look at some of the recent man vs machine games which are going on now! look over the games , excellent openings and brilliant endgames but planning in the middle game???
You might want to read this: Quantum Theory and Human Consciousness
Quote:
What about future evolution? Will consciousness occur in computers? The advent of quantum computers opens the possibility. However, as presently envisioned, quantum computers will have insufficient mass in superposition (e.g., electrons) to reach the threshold for objective reduction due to environmental decoherence. Still, future generations of quantum computers may be able to realize this goal.
Determining whether a player is a human or a computer is a very real problem that has been researched extensively.
Take the Internet Chess Club, for example. If you ever wanted to watch grandmasters play live, or even play against one, that's where you go. They offer a 7-day free trial (actually, it's 14 because you can extend your trial for another 7 days). Anyway, computer assistance is the most problematic form of abuse on the service. Normally, if you're going to be using a computer chess program to assist you while playing, you are required to create a "computer account". The ICC allows computer players on their service because it provides an inexhaustible source of very strong opponents. In fact, if you log on and take a look at the highest rated players, you might be surprised to find a long list of computers before a single grandmaster. Keep in mind, though, that we're talking about playing conditions very different from the famous Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue Games. The computers on ICC have extraordinarily high ratings due to the very fast time controls (most common are either 1 or 5 minutes per player per game), and the rating boost they get from all the games they win against weaker players--after all, they're practically playing 24 hours a day!
Now, I have no idea how many players are cheating by using a computer chess program, but I bet that many have. Imagine playing a game against a high rated opponent--meaning that, if you win, you'll gain a load of rating points--and having a grandmaster strength player at your disposal. Wouldn't you be tempted to ask for hints every once in a while;)?
The ICC has released a statement regarding dishonest computer assistance. In it they explain that they have a program that analyizes games to detect computer-like play. Of course, they protect the details of how the system works to prevent anybody from disguising their abuse. Also, they have chat-bot online all the time to whome you report any suspected cheating. Although, I imagine the majority of those reports are from unskilled players like myself after losing to a pro;)
Back in 1988, I bought Chess Master 2000 for the Amiga as a present to my father.
I played it quite a lot of times, and became very impressed. So, I made a bet with my father for $10.000 (no less), that by New Years Eve 2000, a computer program would beat the current human world champion of chess, using tournament rules.
I haven't reminded him of the bet (yet)... After all, I make lots more money than he does, don't want to impoverish the dear old guy :-)
Conclusion: The age of human chess is near its end. It will fall before the might of brute force calculation, just as Nine Men's Morris did in 1996 (spoiler: the game is a draw). Maybe we feeble humans should learn to concentrate on the things we do well. Such as anything having to do with emotions and pleasure.
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
I think the article might be a year old. The Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz match was supposed to occur in October 2001, but 9/11 caused it to be "delayed". I tried (months ago) to track down the reschedule date, but I have not found anything definite.
Slashdot also ran a previous story on the Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz match approx nine months ago (I think).
I could've sworn that there was a real primitive 8086 chess simulator back in the day that had various strategies of various champion chess players programmed in and it would stick to whatever player's philosophy you chose. It was crude and predictable, but it may have been on the right track...
..but I could be wrong.
Take Kramnik's comments on how Fritz can beat Deep Blue with a grain of salt. The program obviously has a neural network component to it and since the time of Deep Blue, many computer chess scientists have had the ability to analyze and disect that particular game played by Kasperov and Deep Blue. Of course they will find better ways to handle that particular game with so much time spent analyzing it. It doesn't not imply that Fritz7 is better than Deep Blue because we don't know how Deep Blue would play out other games. Sadly we will never know.
"Deep Blue has only played twelve games in two years against one single opponent. As such, it is impossible to tell how strong it is or what it is capable of." - Vishwanathan Anand
When two people play - normal method of play is find a weakness and explote it. For a master is offer a weakness as a trap.
With Man vs Machine, the machine can use that same trick. Offer a weakness allow the human to attact it, and then close the box and kill.
But with BLUE - the weakness where real, the programmers seeing the weakness, and corrected program. Making weakness into a trap (or at least not a weakness anymore). In estances BLUE was cheating by getting outside help.
So the best we can say about the event -- the hamun was debugging the software. There was no Man vs Machine Match.
And, as far as depth goes, some of Chess's master combinations have gone as far as twenty-six moves deep, during the first half of which it appears as though one side is winning, but which turn the situation around by the end. (I'm thinking of one of Alekhine's games in particular, but I'm not at home where I can check my books.) So there's no generalized way of telling how many moves deep you'll have to search until you can evaluate a move.
Also, Chess's maximum branching factor isn't 32. Each piece, of which there are a maximum of 32 on the board, has a minimum of 0, and up to 27 (for a queen with clear lines to the edges). The maximum branching factor has to be recalculated for every move (although I suppose there's a theoretical "most free position," but I don't know it).
All in all, IIRC, the number of possible Chess games is greater than the number of particles in the known universe, so even if that number is fewer than Go's, it's not like it'll ever be a "trivial" exercise computing them--it won't ever happen.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Forget playing against a computer and losing all the time. At SICO we're on the opposite end of the spectrum -- you can play against thousands of idiots all around the world. Tired of the same old boring pieces? Well, we've got new pieces too. In fact, since you lead such a busy life, you don't even have to play a whole game! Just play a single move, and back to work!
You are an idiot. Take a class on AI or read a book. Have you ever heard of game trees? You would not be able to discern the computer following differnet paths that had been layed out in the game tree and a human plan, because they come out to be pretty much the same. But you are still an idiot.
Chess: the epitome of logic, reason, thought blabbidy blabbidy blah blah.
When a machine can play deathmatch then I'll be impressed.
You would expect that since, say, 1980 or so, when numerical calculating power greatly in excess of the human brain became available (and I set it at 1980, not 1960-70, just to be conservative)
Hold your horses there pal. Give a little respect where its due. The human brain is far more powerful than any piece of hardware out there.
Consider the fact that the brain processes two seperate high resolution images and generates depth by comparing them in real-time 12-16 hours a day, plus stores a large portion (some argue all) of the incoming images. The difference between brains and computers are that computers can be programmed much faster than a brain (at least, in a direct means). There are mathemagicians out there that can crunch numbers just as fast as any computer can.
The flaw in your reasoning is that computers are not superior to the human brain, for now at least.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
That is a simple statement of logical fact. You see a chess board is is a geometric pattern and all 32 pices have pre difined abilities.
This quite simply makes chess a finite subject. Large and complex yess. But still finite. What this means is that eventualy we will be able to build a computer that can analize every chess move all the way to the eventual end of the game in order to NEVER make a move that can result in it lusing the game.
This is how computer tic-tac-toe players work now and a checkers computer can be built along these lines too. Sometime before desktops are as powerful as ASCII White This WILL hapen.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
>That any human can still defeat chess programs tells us that humans must be playing chess in some way >fundamentally different from the numerical calculations and search algorithms used by the programs. Or, it tells us that those humans must know something about the game that the programmers don't :-)
Twenties Retirement
Given an infinite amount of processing power and memory, could someone "solve" the game of chess?
;)
The obvious answer is yes...
As for the practical answer, maybe... It will largely depend upon quantum computers. If you've been here a while, you might remember this story . Sometimes it's good to revisit old friends.
Or, I could just resubmit the story and watch it get on the main page. It's not like that's never happened before..
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Of course there's that Ponomorev guy who got schooled big time last month by that Chinese girl, so either of them could claim to be world champ too.
But then there's the almighty Kasparov who schools everybody, including Kramnik and Ponmorov in tournaments.
So in conclusion, I should be world champ! I know how to move a horsey.
I am pretty sure that the answer to (at least part of) this question is human ability to feel and act based on the feelings. Very short description of emotional intelligence.
Unlike computers, humans are very aware of their environment and the influence that environment produces. Sometimes, humans respond to it consciously, sometimes sub-consciously but they (we) always respond in some way.
How does this apply to chess? I do not exactly know but my experience (I used to play chess actively for my school and later my company's team, often facing ranked players, 2 grandmasters amongst them) is that emotions pick up when you sit against the player of the similar or better skill. Now, I don't want to compare myself with any of the real chess players, particularly not grandmasters but despite the fact they've been trained very close to perfection, they are still humans, thus emotional creatures. Their emotions show up when playing against each other and the winner is the one who better controls those emotions, since skills are pretty much leveled.
I'd like to think that proper, positive chanelling of emotions is very much connected to creativity and that this is what makes a difference in the human vs computer game. Otherwise, there's just no logical explanation as to how can any human beat a computer as powerful as Deep Blue or Fritz.
As a side note (for curious crowd) - I managed a draw against one of those two grandmasters and am very proud of it!
Is it possible to use quantum computing to create software which instantly delivers the "perfect" move ?
I have been a USCF "A" player (very strong amateur two levels below master) since the age of twelve. I have studied the game for countless hours. But most importantly, I have studied the games played between Kasparov and Deep Blue during both matches.
In both instances, they were filled with what are commonly called "computer moves"--pointless rook maneuvers or pawn advances that make no sense from a positional or strategical standpoint--moves that no human player would ever play.
While Fritz 7 will be able to tell you if there's a hypothetical knight fork waiting for it fifteen moves later, it still cannot make moves based on a consistent, cogent, long-term strategy, nor can any computer chess program.
"Is that exchange useful because that extra pawn on the kingside can become passed 40 moves later in the endgame?" I could tell you easily, but a chess program could not.
All of these computer programs are mired in the "this position equates to a numerical value of x" alogrithmic model. This is useful for making good, immediate moves, but means that the strength of the program is still limited by the accuracy of its numerical assignments and its move lookahead--two things that are not only finite, but predicatable as well.
It's a lot like humans vs. agents in The Matrix. Trust me, I'd take the positionally-grounded Grandmaster player any day of the week.
If you're implying that we only use some percentage of our brain, than you're repeating one of the most long-lived and completely erroneous memes of popular neuroscience.
The regions of our brain are rather specialized. So while each part gets used some of the time, we don't use all of it all the time. About the only time where all the brain is active at once is in a seizure, which certainly doesn't help chess playing at all.
Given the massive evolutionary sacrifices required for our big brains (painful, dangerous labor and extremely dependent infants compared to other animals), there was clearly a correspondingly strong evolutionary pressure for big brains. If it was possible to have done it with only 10% of the volume, we'd either have much smaller heads, or be a heck of a lot smarter.
The Snopes page is quite informative:
My video compression blog
Deep thought was a very specialized project with a grandmaster used in the programming that was made from the start to beat the best humans in the world. It made some questionable moves that confused him as either very brilliant or extremely bizzare moves for a computer to make. That was the game, his confidence was shot and he was beat. He couldn't tell if it was a trap or if it was just a random attack. Arguably that is the measure of the achievment, he wasn't beat by calculation so much as caluclation and the psychological blow that a few traps had. He was tricked in to thinking the wrong thing and it broke him. I tend to agree with him, it will be amazing if Fritz wins, the software just hasn't gotten good enough and it won't have nearly as many cycles to burn.
You're right. Playing chess isn't really a good definition of intelligence. There are a lot of nuances and a lot of psychology and intuition involved that makes it an interesting game, particularly with computers. It's clear from the Kasparov match though that the end is near. This Fritz match is really just an ego thing.
Currently the world's number 15 human, Ilya Smirin, is playing against four of the world's top programs (info). He is well acquainted with the style of computer play, understands the strengths and weaknesses of the machines and prepared carefully for this match. In most of the games he has outplayed the programs, but is only one point ahead in the seven games played so far.
Tomorrow (Sunday) is the last game of the series. One has to be repeated after a very unusual incident: Deep Junior was winning but the Internet connection broke down and the computer could not process Smirin's move. So the operator offered him a draw. Smirin refused, saying he did not deserve to share the point. Instead he offered to resign. The Junior team refused because the program had not demonstrated the win. So they decided to repeat the game (info).
I agree. It is very difficult to make comparisons to the brain and computer because they are fundamentally different. How do you compare intelligence between the two? You can't.
Computer intelligence is based on the ability to process information and make calculations. Human intelligence is largely based on pattern recognition.
That which is very easy for a computer (multiplying 385489395 and 28499292 for example) is very difficult for a human. A computer can accomplish this very quickly using a very simple algorithm.
On the other hand, that which is very easy for humans, is very difficult for computers. A person's ability to recognize what a child's drawing represents does not require concious thought and is very simple for that person. A computer program that could do this on a regular basis would truly be impressive.
Kasparov pretty clearly wasn't playing at his best during the Kramnik match and Kasparov said afterwards that he expected to get a rematch and win the championship back. I agree and my money would be on Kasparov in such a rematch, though Kramnik is definitely no slouch, and anything could happen.
The thing about Kasparov ducking out of the Dortmund cycle is new to me (I haven't been following this stuff closely). I wonder if Kasparov is just sick of chess. He often has shown signs of that in recent years.
A computer stores data by the arrangement of electrons in matter. Since the state space of Chess is huge (the number of atoms in the universe), it would take that many atoms to store the state space. A computer that can store the entire space would have to be the size of the universe (or insanely dense). It may be possible with quantum computers (T&&F==T||F ;), but I can't begin to comment on that.
Why bother.
Kasparov beat Deep Blue by scoping out Deep Blues patterns of play -- Kasparov has the makings of a really, really good computer programmer. What happened next is that the IBM team tweaked Deep Blue and Kasparov lost.
Kasparov cried foul because he claimed that the IBM programmers were scoping his patterns out and adjusting Deep Blue accordingly.
He has a point, and it goes to the scientific integrity of claims of performance in many AI tasks. "Oh, the thing failed, we need to adjust the decision threshold here to get that case to work." Are the programmers really correcting bugs or are the programmers really playing Kasparov, of course aided by a really fast calculator because Kasparov is better at figuring out stuff in his head?
It had been suggested to me that true AI will be here if Deep Blue is able to adapt/learn/tune/tweak by itself without the programmers doing anything, perhaps losing initially but getting better with time.
I am a chess player and programmer, although I would not brag about my ability in either. Fritz and Deep Blue are interesting chess programs, but I am more interested in Crafty, which is one of the highest rated chess programs, and which is open source as well - I can look at the source code and look at what it is doing. In fact, the commercial Fritz package has two parts - an engine and what is designed around the engine. You can switch the Crafty engine with the Fritz engine and analyze positions and the like using both engines - something I often do.
To understand humans versus computer chess playing, you have to understand that at higher levels of playing ability, chess is broken down into three parts - opening, middle game and end game.
The computer's greatest strength lies in it's *perfect* end game ability. Here the computer is indisputably the master, it never makes a mistake. In fact, they have been pushing this backwards - first it played perfectly with 3 pieces on the board, then 4, then 5, and they keep going backwards and increasing that number.
The computer's second greatest strength is in it's opening ability. Here the computer has the ability to play a perfect game as chess is currently known. It is able to analyze every chess game ever played and play the best game possible as chess is currently known. If the grandmaster it is playing against is very smart, the grandmaster can invent a chess innovation that has never been done before, or that has been done once or twice so long ago that everybody has forgotten about it, and even the computer ignores it. These innovations are one of the exciting things about grandmaster play, because grandmasters come up with new innovations in chess openings every year, some of them quite exciting and amazing. So if the grandmaster is smart enough to create an amazing chess opening innovation, he can win against opponents like Deeper Blue.
I should also point out that certain openings are good for humans, and certain openings are good for computers. Openings which go into "open" games are good for computers because tactics is the greatest strength of computers. Openings which go into "closed" games are good for humans, because they are strategic, and strategy is one of the few weapons a human has against a Deeper Blue.
Now we get into the important part, the middle game. As I said before, computers are becoming more and more the tactical masters of this arena, although humans still rule the domain of strategy. Although computer endings are still being expanded in the ending (first a perfect game with 3 pieces, then 4 pieces, then 5 pieces, then 6 pieces...) and in the beginning (always being updated with the latest matches, and some algorithms tweaked), the middle game is where the real work is being, and needs to be done to improve computer chess playing ability. In tactical terms, as algorithms are tweaked and processing power increases, computers are able to see farther and farther ahead in the game with a clearer and clearer view. Nonetheless, computers have problems with strategy and positional play - they can't see how much of a threat passed pawns are, which currently requires thinking, not evaluation. They also have other problems like a horizon effect, they don't see how their pieces can get trapped in a way that would be easily obvious to any grandmaster "thinking" about it.
Many articles and books have been written on computer chess - how to program and improve computer chess programs and then how to beat them, and there are quite a few people who enjoy regularly beating the best chess programs out there on a regular basis. Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan, who makes a habit of beating chess computers, says that he believes even the best programs like Deeper Blue are inferior to the best grandmasters, and that only by psyching out opponents can computers win. Humans can make 30 excellent moves, and then get distracted and make a simple, stupid mistake on a move (a "blunder"). I've felt this myself - it is psychically challenging to stare at a chess board for over an hour with such intense concentration - if I was doing a programming problem and felt like this, I would get up and go get a glass of water and relax, but you can't do that in a times chess game. Computers always play at the same ability, they don't "get tired", and a very tired, distracted human who has a cold and is hungry will probably be playing at less than his highest potential and is apt to make blunders. Despite these human failings, we have the advantage of being able to get an axe and break Deep Blue into a million pieces, an advantage computers luckily don't have the ability to do to us (yet).
I think that qualifies as devolution. Are we not men? We are DEVO! :)
deus does not exist but if he does
"Grandmasters can in fact tell ... "
Bull.
This is a polite fiction we tell ourselves.
In point of fact, when Kaspy got his ass handed to him by Big Blue, his initial response was to demand the readouts and other code because he suspected that another grandmaster (maybe Kramnik?) was feeding it moves.
People -- don't be so generous with those "Insightful" points.
Defending Humanity's Honor
Back to chess, personally, I don't believe the human race has anything to worry about from a pride standpoint, if (when!) Fritz eventually triumphs over Kramnik. But when the world's top Go players are finally defeated, that will be a different story indeed...
Even when the top Go players are defeated by machines, I dont consider that a big success of the machines.....
We can just invent another game with even more complexity, and again, the machines will lag far behind.
I believe that defeating humans in games like these....means nothing to AI.
Games just involve tactically calculating positions, and thats all.
What will be interesting....is when the machines are able to play any strategy game...without human help...and still defeat the human world champion.
Such kind of research is being done...where the program develops its game from itself by using machine learning techniques like neural networks stuff....but so far, they havent been very successful.
When such kind of machines rule strategy games, then I would say its a battle lost..., and we would rather let the computers take over...
I have found a solution to Riemann's Hypothesis, but have run out of spac
Yes, chess is solvable. It doesn't matter what the opponent does (however, it could be the case that the person who makes the first move always looses). If you think that the opponent being able to move changes this, then think about tic-tac-toe. That is another game that has perfect information where the opponent also has a choice to disrupt your plan, yet perfect play has already been demonstrated. Or you can think of connect-4, in this game the first person to move always wins.
Connect 4 was not solved by any deep searching. It is mathematically solvable. You can look at a position and almost instantly tell what side will win. There is a small, finite set of rules that tell you who will win the game. I wrote this for the my second computer science class and absolutely destroyed the entire class, winning every single match with O(1) complexity for a move choice.
ok, to my understanding there is a tremendous monetary reward for a computer go program that can reliably beat a pro. if it were possible, someone would have claimed this money. im only ~9 kyu and can dominate just about any computerized go 'player'. the forked nature causes the computer's inability to respond, but ko and larger ko-like sequences add to the forked nature by creating whole new dimensions of forkedness. anyone whose tested (and beaten) many bots can confirm this; once you break a sequence back to where it was - to the same location on the 'tree' the computer cannot respond. chess, peh, lightweight. when a comp can beat a go master, well, thatll be the day.
Why you need these position as well? Simple, we are placing stones successively here, and a mini-max strategy needs to evaluate these as well; some intermediate positions might be immediately losing, so they will be pruned.
There was talk a year or so back in Europe about creating a distributed system a la seti@home with the objective of "Solving Chess".
Never heard if it got off the ground, though.
Isn't it likely that most of the top chess players will have studied the way in which other grand masters play, and therefore top players can identify a computer opponent since it will have a style different to all other top players?
i.e. the computer will stick out like the new kid in the playground?
-- Mike
Grandmasters claim they have no trouble in online chess rooms telling whether an opponent is a human or someone plugging in the moves from Chessmaster 8000.
I guess you feel pretty dumb now, eh?
As for game trees, that is exactly how they can tell the difference, and one of the primary ways human grandmasters use to defeat computers. Analyzing game trees leads to the "horizon effect", where there is no guarantee that what seems like a good path of 10 moves into the future doesn't turn bad suddenly on the 11th or 12th. Grandmasters take advantage of this to try to lead the computer into what seems like a fantastic path, but that turns bad somewhere after the depth search capability of the computer.
So the top eschelons of chess will be played by machine...Deep Blue vs. Fritz.
Armed, unmanned drones will fight wars in the sky and people will settle up afterwards.
Pass the popcorn.
Do yourself a favor and check out a new month-old internet site called Serence. Since April 2002 they have had a free / no ads / no spyware download for your Windows desktop called Klipfolio and this thing is great. According to the site statistics 3400+ slashdotters have already downloaded the Slashdot Klip and after joining them today, I can see why. (No, I don't have any personal vested interest in this, I just think it's cool.) The Slashdot Klip stays on your desktop and downloads the XML feed from Andover/Slashdot containing current article headlines, alerting you when there is a new one. Klips from a few dozen other founding news sources with XML newsfeeds are also available in a scrolling, dockable, resizable, skinnable package. In the lower left corner of the previous link you can suggest a new klip feed to Serence you'd like to see - a great thing for you to do, the more sites that use this, the better for all of us. You can even start up your own personal Klip feed! Rack up your favorite sites in one desktop package and you are really in control...click on a headline, up comes the article, click on the site symbol, up comes the home page. Like any dot-com, Serence's success depends on market penetration and this is one idea I think deserves to be slashdotted so it has a shot at succeeding...
Offtopic? Not really, the article I'm posting under went out as a Slashdot Klip headline. And what good is maxed out karma if not to risk it in spreading the word about a cool new Slashdot feature?
I don't think anyone is denying we know next to nothing about human intelligence. Also, your analogy of humans to computers and runners to locomotives is misleading at best. Propulsion systems (commonly used ones today at least) are far simpler to understand than computational systems. (maybe that's saying something about intelligence right there) There's also the question of whether or not the brain is a quantum computer (or whatever the natural version of that is), and though I admittedly don't know enough to argue either side of that, there are people who argue it is. (Not sure if there are many who argue it isn't)
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
This "interview" is pretty self serving for ChessBase GmBh and Frederick Friedel, it's principal. It basically is structured around the theme of legitmizing Fritz as the leading chess engine (over Deep Blue - which has since been disassembled) with a bit of fluff on chess politics thrown in. Sigh - well, I guess it sells more copies of Fritz v7
Check out chess interfaces eboard for gnome and knights for KDE. And don't forget to play on FICS
I played him 12 games and won all of them. The truth is, Kramnik only learned how to play chess last year and still gets confused as to how knights move.
We're talking about Boris Kramnik, my 9-yr old cousin, right?
I am very bad at chess, so I guess it must be true!
You are indeed correct in that every two player zero-sum game has a 'solution' and a 'perfect strategy'. Theoretically. Solving chess as a matrix game is, however, not possible in practice due to its extreme size. If you had infinite processing power and memory, it'd be trivial though :)
As all the Lexx fanatics are aware, this seasons final episode involved the complete destruction of an alien vessel 2/3 the size of the earth into a piece of matter the size of a pea. This was done by calculating the exact mass of a higgs-boson particle using a 'portable' super colider.
So perhaps the next finale for lexx should involve building a 1 KG device to 'solve' chess in half a second.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
It is an unwinable game.
This is why it is possible to create a computer that can't be beaten.
Shame on you for not remembering "War Games".
While it may possibly be determined at some point if Chess is an 'unwinable' game, at present time, it is beyond the scope of any programmer to design a chess program (to beat a chess master) that isn't (at least partially) based on known human strategies, that another human can develop a counter strategy to given enough time and assuming they are good enough.
Say I want to put your peices on "BAD" squares. So I check your king early on, to force you to block check with a pawn, then i set up an exchange which puts two more pawns in the way or your bishop. I've just blocked your bishop from attacking giving me a peice advantage. Lets say i move more pawns forward and slowly take away spots your knight can move to.
What you have here is no good moves to choose from, you've lost control of the game, all my peices are on the best squares while all your peices are trapped behind pawns and have poor angles, by using checks, timely exchanges, and etc, if planned right you can easily TRICK a computer into giving you control of the board.
Let a simple exchange of peices can have the end result with my peice on a better square, a simple check can put your pawn on a square i want it to be on, a simple THREAT via my improved position can force you to move your peices to defend against it, i've effectively taken control of the board and you'll spend the entire game reacting to my every move struggling to fight your way out of checkmate, threats of checkmate, and trying to get your peices on decent squares.
What good is your knight if its in the corner of the board because i put your knight there via some exchange which forced your knight to go there.
What good is a bishop if its behind a pawn because i PUT the pawn there when I checked you.
Seems like a wasted move, but that pawn blocking your king was your BEST and ONLY move, and it happened to give me control of the board.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac