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.
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
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
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."
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
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
>From someone who has played them, how does Chess
/. a few weeks ago) designed a complete ruleset that's only a few lines long. In practise, there are many rulesets, most of them because of tradition. This is somewhat problematic when making a program, because some rulesets are simply not complete.
:) I would have to check for the current state of the art, but I believe the top programs are quite competitive here.
>compare to Go or Shogi in terms of depth and
>style of play?
I've played all three and written strong programs to play two of them, but this still is a hard question.
Go is by far the deepest. The current top programs play at the level of a (rather weak) club player. It's got a huge branching factor (number of possible moves) which makes any brute or semi-brute force appraoch (what is used for chess) impossible. Most programs around right now are based on pattern recognition.
Funny thing is, the game is by far the simplest. John Tromp (the guy that wrote the 'shorter turing machine' that was posted to
Playing go is a very nice mixture of tactics and strategy. One other thing that's very nice about it is that there is a very good handicap system. The games can always be close, even against much stronger players.
Chess, well, it's mostly about tactics. Of course positional understanding matters a lot, but it's actually rather insignificant compared to the tactical part. Mostly due to continious small advances in technique and hardware, we've now got programs that are able to search about 16 half-moves (move by one side) deep. That'll nearly always take care of the tactical part. Programming strategical understanding is much harder, but a lot of progress is being made in the latter. Especially the latest generation of programs took a big step forward. We've got computers that can successfully compete with the very best humans.
Shogi I've only played once, but I've been working a lot on a chess variant that behaves like Shogi in the past. (captured pieces can be dropped) It's got almost double the branching factor of chess, and hence is somewhere halfway between go and chess. The big issue with it is that it is also very tactical, unlike go. Even though the brute force depth of current programs isn't great, they can extend mating lines very well. And mates are important in shogi/dropchess
--
GCP
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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
there had been a few rumors of some drugs that improved mental stimulation type things, but that is not the main reason for the testing. The primary reason for it, is that they are hoping to make a push for IOC recognition (the Olympics)
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 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.
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;)
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!
I would like to know which courses you think are "junk courses which you dont really need."
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
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 ?
The Olympics? WTF... Chess is not a sport...
It was included in the Sydney Olympics of 2000 as an exhibition "trial-sport".
That's the main reason for the drug testing policies, the IOC will never allow it as a full sport until it has a comprehensive drug testing policy.
i wont even try to argue as whether it's a sport or not, but in the eyes of the IOC it seems to meet their qualifactions
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.
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
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).
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.
I think that qualifies as devolution. Are we not men? We are DEVO! :)
deus does not exist but if he does
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.
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