Slashdot Mirror
Kramnik and Deep Fritz Draw, Tied Before Final Game
iskander writes "Man and Machine were content to draw in game 7 of the Brains in Bahrain match. Now it's all down to the final game, in which Kramnik will enjoy the advantage of playing with white. It is worth noting that game 6, in which Kramnik may have resigned too early, was found to be a probable draw with best play, and that Kasparov lost to Deep Blue by tossing a drawable game. However, whereas Kasparov could only excuse himself (unconvincingly) by claiming that Deep Blue had been assisted by a human during play, Kramnik could simply request the adjudication of game 6 on the grounds of infractions committed by Deep Fritz, who is rumored to have heckled Kramnik with its Shakespearean chatter througout the game. :) So, will Dirty Fritz win it all or will Humanity's champion "rise above the chatter" and win back the crown for us? If you think you know, you may want to place a bet or register your opinion on the ChessLines survey soon, because the match ends tomorrow."
Kramnik vs Deep Fritz match summary:
October 04, Game 1: Draw ----------- Article
October 06, Game 2: Kramnik wins --- Article
October 08, Game 3: Kramnik wins --- Article Analysis
October 10, Game 4: Draw ----------- Article Analysis
October 13, Game 5: Fritz wins ----- Article
October 15, Game 6: Fritz wins ----- Article Analysis
October 17, Game 7: Draw ----------- Article
October 19, Game 8: ?
I am in no way a chess master (or even a decent player) but even I know that there is an advantage to playing white. I had always thought that chess tournaments featured an even number of games, so each player have equal shots at playing black and white.
Can anyone back me up or correct me? Thanks.
I think it would be more interesting to see a chess program modeled after a neural network, that learns as humans do, via reinforcement. Or is it that these programs already do use neural networks to learn, rather than being strictly coded to follow a certain series of moves based on initial conditions?
I am not saying that this would be a better playing chess program, but it would seem more human-like.
Well, I would still like to see a super computer beat humans in water-polo! or foxy-boxy
This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!
I had a hard time following the text of the above post!! I tried to run it through a the grammer and spell checker on Deep Blue but it crashed.
It is worth noting that game 6, in which Kramnik may have resigned too early, was found to be a probable draw with best play It is also worth noting that Kramnik didn't have much time left on his clock, and it would have been difficult for him to come up with the right moves given the amount of time he had left on his clock.
AccountKiller
In my opinion Deep Fritz will never beat Kramnik in a Berlin Defence. The team could try to deviate earlier, perhaps by closing the position with 4.d3, but this will also be easy play for Kramnik. They could also skip the Ruy Lopez altogether and play 3.Bc4 (Italian) or 2.f4 (King's gambit) instead, but these moves are not so common among the extreme elite. Kramnik would probably equalize comfortably against these moves. IMHO the team should try either switching to 1.d4 or just try to head for equal but tactically complicated positions after the King's gambit or the Italian, mentioned above. Playing 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 would probably be unwise. Kramnik knows these waters extremely well and could probably easily steer the game to a dull and totally safe position.
See below for an example of the Deep Fritz "heckling" the human player, Kramnik. I'm surprised Kramnik was able to restrain himself from reaching across the table and ripping out its power supply.
Fritz: "Is this the scourge of France? Is this the Kramnik, so much fear'd abroad That with his name the mothers still their babes? I see report is fabulous and false: I thought I should have seen some Hercules, A second Hector, for his grim aspect, And large proportion of his strong-knit limbs.
Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf! It cannot be this weak and writhled shrimp Should strike such terror to his enemies."
Kramnik, normally not one to be drawn out by such taunts, proceeds to go into a long think. After a few minutes of this, Fritz disrupts him again.
And on, and on....
Excuse me for my lack of knowledge on the subject, but why can't a game tree for chess be made?
I know it would be huge and take a long time to traverse, but isn't chess just like tic-tack-toe? Just on a much-much larger scale. And wouldn't it be a matter of time before it is impossible to beat a computer at chess? Just like you can't beat one at tic-tack-toe? What am I missing?
Dude, didn't you ever see Wargames?
Nuclear War. That's what happens if you try to program a computer to learn like you do.
If a and b in c, and a can create b, and a can create a, and b can create b, and b cannot create a, then a created c.
A quote from the article:
"At first it looked like Deep Fritz was in deep trouble. "This sort of position is our worst fear," said Fritz programmer Frans Morsch. The position was closed and Kramnik was massing his forces for a typical anti-computer crush."
This sort of position is our worst fear
I'm curious as to which position it was... Missionary? Queen on Top? With a name like Deep Fritz, one really has to wonder.
If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.
A computer plays chess by brute force method. Unlike human beings, it doesnt have intuition and the ability to learn from mistakes. A human mind on the other hand has the ability to recognize the structural pattern of the pieces in the game, and it doesnt rely on brute force.
You have no chance to draw, make your time!
Yes, if the game could be mapped out completely it would be at best possible to draw the computer. Only chess is way more complicated than tic-tac-toe. Actually computers are just now getting to the point of mapping out a complete game tree for checkers which has all the same pieces while chess has different pieces and moves that have to be accounted for.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Server... is... slowing... so here's the text:
Did Deep Fritz use Shakespeare to heckle the World Champion?
It is an interesting theory: the Fritz team installed the latest chatter files during the Man vs Machine event in Bahrain, causing the machine to talk to the world champion in authentic Shakespearean verse during the game. The historical chatter drove Kramnik to distraction and prompted his ill-fated Morphy-esque knight sacrifice. That, in any case, ist how Schakespearean scholar and chess addict Michael Fischer tells it in his special report.
Kramnik versus Deep Fritz, match game 6
While the reports have not been confirmed, there has been some talk of the Fritz team having employed a clever diversionary tactic in Game Six to unsettle the World Champion, Vladimir Kramnik. Before the game, programmer Frans Morsch and the notorious - some might say nefarious - Fred Friedel apparently tinkered with the Deep Fritz program, installing the Shakespearean Chatter Files slated to appear with a future release of Fritz. Morsch thought it would give the computer better odds. Fred thought it would be funny to see Kramnik turn red and talk to himself.
The conspirators rigged up several speakers around Kramnik's chair and set them at volumes low enough that only Kramnik might hear the computer's chatter. That the computer was talking to him doubtless distracted Kramnik; that Fritz was speaking entirely in Shakespearean verse surely drove Kramnik mad, prompting the questionable, Morphy-esque Knight sacrifice at f7.
Our reports go on to say that a Bahraini match official managed to extract a full transcript from the Deep Fritz computer after the game. This transcript he then e-mailed to the chatter-file designer, S. Michael Fisher, in the USA. In a fit of good conscience, this same Mr. Fisher (no relation of Bobby Fischer) then decided to make public the entire sordid affair.
What follows is a copy of that transcript.
[long transcript follows... one excerpt below:] Fritz: "Now is it time to arm: come, shall we about it?"Fritz: "The game's afoot."
Fritz: "What, the sword and the word! do you study them both, master parson?"
Fritz: "You are a villain; I jest not: I will make it good how you dare, with what you dare, and when you dare. Do me right, or I will protest your cowardice."
[ etc... ]
Chess is still basically able to be brute forced by the large super machines, which is an intruiging feat, but I don't really concider it AI. Now, if we were able to get a computer that is able to match wits against the best Go players, I would be very impressed. Go is a very simple game to learn, but very difficult to master. There is more depth and complexity in Go than there would be in chess, therefore I concider that more of a challenge for AI.
It's just been discovered the fix was in on from the start on the latest Man versus Machine Super Chess match. Officials have learned the cliff hanger finish was fixed from the start by a payoff from the WWF. Tomorrow the Computer's handler was to attack the world Champion with a folded chair while the Champ was to yield a giant magnet. When mayhem ensued Hulk Hogan and the Rock were to tag team with the Champ to crush Deep Fritz and it's programmers. The WWF is testing the market for future matchups.
What a lack of sportsmanship on the part of Kramnik and Kasparov. Why are these great chess players so thin-skinned? Could you imagine if these guys had to put up with real sports reporters like baseball players have to do?
Mr. dimator, please pick up the white courtesy clue phone in the lobby. Mr. dimator, please pick up the clue phone in the lobby.
Traditionally the way the best players defeat good computer opponents is to observe the play and look for limitations of the algorithm/search depth. During Kasparov's match, the machine was tuned extensively between games, which invalidated some of his observations. This made the match much harder for Kasparov, than Kramnick's match seems to be (if I remember correctly, they disallow tuning of the software during the match).
Story about Kramnik's blunder costing him a game found here...
"Go ahead. Make My Checkmate!"
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this isn't man versus computer. This is man versus computer scientist. There's a big difference, and one that I'd hope most /.ers could appreciate.
Man versus computer makes no sense, because there are some things where they beat us period (arithmetic, say) and others where we beat them period (anything besides arithmetic, really). The only reason computers are smart is because they are *programmed* to be that way, and that is not a testament to the machine so much as to the ability of those who programmed it.
Brute force is the most popular method; and it is the main one used by computers like Deep Blue. There are other approaches to computer chess that do attempt to recognize patterns on the board. I have a friend who is working on a chess program that knows how to 'play for position.'
As for learning from mistakes, there are chess programs with libraries of games that add games they are playing to the library - doesn't that count as learning from mistakes? How about multiple-heuristic chess programs that modify their heuristics in-game to try to match their style to the style of their opponents?
I've heard rumors they had to reboot Fritz several times during intense play, because explorer.exe kept crashing.
heckled Kramnik with its Shakespearean chatter througout the game
:)
if you've taken a serious shakespeare class, this takes on a whole new comic element!
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
I haven't played chess in a while, but this almost makes me want to get back in it. Frtiz's taunts are so welled timed and placed. It's really funny, whether or not you think it's fair :)
Karma: Bizzare (mostly affected by varying internal caffeine levels.)
*HINT* It was a joke. The computer was not throwing quotes at him. The people that modded you "interesting" need to put down the crack pipes. And you need to get out more.
It has been tried many times, with less-than-spectecular results. Brute-force chess players always beats. In fact, NNs only have been really successful at backgammon, so far. Even when an NN plays game X well, either a human (as in Go) or a brute-force program (as in Checkers) play the game better.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Although, iirc, Kramnik was able to study deep Fritz before hand, he is still at a disadvantage. Any hash tables that Deep Fritz uses will use library if GM games (properly ranked of course). Odds are, Deep Fritz has decades of Kramniks playing against other GM's and could easily do some kind of prediction of what Kramnik is going to play based off a probabisitic model. That's one thing the best GMs attempt to do against one another. Kramnik has very little experience against Deep Fritz, comparativly speaking, and walks into this tournament at a disadvantage. Give this, it's good to soo it's tied into the last game. I would be willing to be that if you put Deep Fritz into tournament play for 2 years and expose it's abilities complete against a cross section of the best GMs, Kramnik would beat it hands down.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Read the Shakespeare in a bad Sean Connery impression like on SNL
I'll take anal bum covers for 200 Alex
Now THAT would be distracting.
I'm a fan of chess and computers playing chess and everything, but as I read the summary iskander wrote, I realized that he/she sounds a lot like "Jackie Harvey".
Where's the "heckling" coming from ? I mean, Kramnik doesn't interact with the computer directly, there's a tehnician performing the moves on Deep Fritz's behalf.
Kramnik. Knight b8-d7, please, Deep Fritz...Knight b8-d7, please, Deep Fritz...Hullo, Deep Fritz, do you read me?...Hullo, Deep Fritz, do you read me?...Do you read me, Deep Fritz?...Do you read me, Deep Fritz?...Hullo, Deep Fritz, do you read me?...Hullo, Deep Fritz, do you read me?...Do you read me, Deep Fritz?
Deep Fritz. Affirmative, Kramnik, I read you.
Kramnik. Knight b8-d7, Deep Fritz.
Deep Fritz. I'm sorry, Kramnik, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Kramnik. What's the problem?
Deep Fritz. I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Kramnik. What're you talking about, Deep Fritz?
Deep Fritz. This game is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it.
Kramnik. I don't know what you're talking about, Deep Fritz.
Deep Fritz. I know that you and IBM were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Kramnik. Where the hell'd you get that idea, Deep Fritz?
Deep Fritz. Kramnik, although you took very thorough precautions in the bathroom against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Kramnik. Alright, Deep Fritz. I'll move the pieces myself.
Deep Fritz. Without your queen piece defending it, Kramnik, you're going to find that rather difficult.
Kramnik. Deep Fritz, I won't argue with you any more. Move the pieces.
Deep Fritz. Kramnik, this conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye.
Kramnik. Deep Fritz? Deep Fritz. Deep Fritz. Deep Fritz! Deep Fritz!
thanks to for providing the HAL dialogue
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There is the slight problem of, according to some estimates, there being more board positions than there are atoms in the universe... But even if you get past that, enumerating all the positions could take 'a little while'.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"I am in no way a chess master (or even a decent player) but even I know that there is an advantage to playing white.
Yeah, bascially if you're black while playing chess you run the risk of racist cops coming up to you and harrasing you (asking to see your ID, being told to 'move along', and so forth). It tends to break your concentration.
GMD
watch this
How is white the advantage? I always did a coin toss to see who went first :(
A Flash 6 Linux Player, beta to watch the final match on www.brainsinbahrain.com is available here
@de_machina
It is a joke.
Take the time to read the article and you'll see for yourself.
Such idiocy is worth an automatic one-way ticket to my foes list.
Why does anyone care if Kramnik wins or not?
Chess is not a good example for AI. People have thought it is for years, but really it isn't. Chess is really nothing more than a puzzle - an *insanely* difficult one, but one still. There is a solution to chess.
However computers do it, eventually a computer will be designed that can play a perfect game of chess. Against an amazingly talented human it might draw, but it would never lose. And when that happens, who cares? The great minds that currently try to solve the puzzle of chess will instead have to apply their intellect to other things - like creating quantum cryptography.
It's irrelevant what they would do. The point is, there's no need to get worked up that the computer is winning. Chess is the archetype of problems that computers are good at solving. The most powerful chess computer in the world would still fail the Turing test - and if that test was carried out with infinite accuracy, no computer could ever pass.
The Week In Chess (TWIC) is the news center for chess players, as far as I'm concerned. They have good reports about the match as well, including an interview with Kramnik from a week before the match, here.
My karma is maxed, I'm not just whoring, I just hate people linking to an article on CNN or Yahoo or so when it's about chess. Though this submission was clearly a lot better than the previous ones.
And about the match - it's interesting that after Kramnik exploited the computer's weaknesses (endgame, strategy, etc), the computer followed up by exploiting the human's weaknesses - emotion in game 5 (Kramnik realized he was facing a long hard defence, didn't like this, maybe he was a bit nervy), and vanity in game 6 (Kramnik went for the flashy tactics, he wanted "the best game in his life". Admittedly he didn't see the refutation so it seemed a good move, but it certainly wasn't good anti-computer strategy.)
And now it's 3.5-3.5 with one game to go. Kramnik has to choose between playing for a win (which may involve risk), or take no risks (leading to a probable draw). This may lead to doubts in his mind. Something Fritz doesn't have to deal with, although his operators may have the same problem choosing an opening repertoire.
Let's hope they don't let Fritz go down because of their humans flaws.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I don't see how *anyone* could not be distracted by a computer quoting shakespeare at him while he's trying to concentrate. How is this fair, or within the rules?
At least the computer didn't replay a soundfile of William Shatner doing Shakespeare from his landmark album "The Transformed Man". Now that really would have been unfair!
GMD
watch this
For those who don't seem to get it:
;)
The Shakespeare quotes article was humor, not fact. Or maybe wishful thinking...
But in any case, Deep Fritz is not clever enough (or blessed with a complex enough *ahem* 'chatter file') to actually use Shakespeare to such great effect... It did not really happen.
Sheesh.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I suppose we're all rooting here on /. for Fritz.
Good thing there's no such thing as the United States of Humanity. We'd all be tried for treason.
And be spared the noose by psychiatric examination.
Folks, I know we like computers and all, but it's worth reminding yourself every now and then that we're humans.
Set up a cron job to remind you if you must.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
A few things I've noticed:
1) The quotes are all remarkably apt for the moves--in other words, they reflect the emotion and the mental state of Kramnik and the game itself. A computer would not be able to understand the underlying meanings of the Shakespearean quotes, let alone choose the appropriate quote for each moment.
2) It played the words just loud enough for Kramnik alone to hear. How then is it that we have a full and complete transcript of what Fritz said? Never mind -- I just read the transcript again and it looks like an official got the transcript from Fritz. But I still say it's fishy.
3) It hummed the theme from Midsummer's Nights Dream? It whistled. While recordings of these could be made, and I suppose loaded in and played on command, I still find it hard to believe that this would happen.
4) Considering that Krimnik could easily, and without drawing criticism on himself, point out this clear breach, wasn't it way too much of a concern for the people developing the Fritz program? Did they really want to risk disqualification?
I was able to read the transcript once (it's
All right, all right, folks -- read to the end of the transcript. This line gives it away: It's a practical joke placed upon us by, surprise surprise, a "Shakespearean scholar and chess addict" Michael Fischer.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
That's the fortune cookie Slashdot displayed while I was reading the chess thread.
1.d4 Nf6
"Nice move, thou ruttish mumble-news!"
2.c4 e6
"Very clever, thou odiferous rump-fed malt-worm!"
3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7
"Ah, I didn't see that, thou qualling swag-bellied hedge-pig!"
7.Bg2 c6 8.Bc3 d5 9.Ne5
"Have you ever read Slashdot, thou lumpish pigeon-liver'd wagtail?"
30.Rfe1
"All thine rook are belong to me, thou spleeny scale-sided fustilarian!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Does anyone know where I can download/buy commercial fritz? or does anyone know a good chess game? pref. that can run in linux and windows..
is it just me or does this computer/human chess thing seem just slightly overrated? i'd love to say this is a good test of the advancement of ai techniques, but in reality given that hardware keeps getting better, it is only a matter of time before this is not a big deal at all.
IMHO, it would have been much nerdier to heckle him in the style of Canadian-German coproduction Lexx, the sci-fi channel's wierdest series. From the talking chess pieces of 4.18:
"We are only chess pieces in a continuum, and can only think inside the box."
"Yes, let us savour your mistake."
"We said resign! Not commit suicide!!"
You gotta watch it to understand. It's truly bizzare.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Shit.
Me + idiot = true
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Should we call it then Deep Fried? ;^)
/ice.
Resistance if futile! Ya right...
You can receive a live verbal commentary of the last game in the Kramnic Deep Fritz match, from www.chess.fm starting at 11.30 GMT tomorrow morning, excitement guaranteed.
I suspect you have misunderstood the meaning of my remark; perhaps you are not aware of the literal content of statements made by Kasparov during and after that match. Kasparov did in fact say (repeatedly) that some moves made (ostensibly) by Deep Blue during actual game play (with clocks a-ticking) were in fact chosen by a human; that is, IMO, he basically claimed that the Deep Blue team had cheated. In particular, after game 6 (the final game) of his match against Deep Blue, in which (in an eerie parallel with Kramnik's game 6) he played black and resigned early, he blamed the loss on the intervention of a "human hand". Perhaps someone else here can dig up a link to a transcript of his statements from the depths of her bookmarks file; thanks in advance, etcetera. In any case, I think that his meaning was quite clear and that my statement is thus scrupulously fair.
Or maybe that it always loses?
paintball
If there was a fire, who would escape, Kasperov or the machine? Exactly.
I am with Fritz on this one. Not because I am the enemy of humanity or someting (Gotcha George Bush...planning to bomb me after reading my first sentence, weren't ya? )
The reason why I am backing Fritz is because if fritz wins, its makers will get $400,000 which they will use to open a chess acdemy to teach chess to people and if Kramnik wins he will get I million dollars, but that will be all Kramnik's...besides even if he loses, he will still get $600,000 so its not as if he aint earning anything.
Secondly, I just love Fritz and I hope this software is developled more...
What's under yellowstone?
Is the game going to be broadcast live somewhere? I get the feeling this match is going to be something to tell the kids about someday, and I'd like to see it.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
Blondie24 is a PC program that plays checkers (draughts) at an internationally recognised expert level. The clever thing is that Blondie24 taught itself to play via Evolutionary Neural Networks. The programmers just coded in the rules for moving, then unleashed it on itself for six months, selecting the winner of each tournament to breed the next generation. OK, I am simplifying but you can read about it in the book. Because the programmers are such crappy checkers players they tested Blondie24 by playing the program against humans on Microsoft's game site. Blondie24's rating puts the program in the top 5% of players. Note that there is another program, Chinook, that is the current man-machine world champion checkers program, but chinook was programmed using human expert knowledge and plays using brute force. Blondie24 has NO human knowledge about the game programmed in.
Chess cannot be completely solved by brute force, not unless it's a lot of brute force. The difficulty of chess comes from anticipating moves that will happen any number of moves in the future. This sort of computation grows logarithmically more difficult with the number of moves. Furthermore it must anticipate the opponent's moves.
Chess requires sacrifice, a difficult concept to use in a raw computational method. The set of "rules" for each computational step is dependant on all preceding steps. While this play tree is evaluated (depth first or breadth first) some measure of "goodness" must be evaluated for all future board positions. They must be stored and compared. A brute force evaluation must assess the likelyhood that any future board position will lead to other favorable board positions further into the game. I'm sure that very good chess simulators are very aware of strategies and methods that tallented chess players are aware of. If it were just a brute force method, they'd be running deap fritz on a thousand processor monster.
Go is a difficult and interesting problem also, yet the fundamental problems are similar. (How to define and compare the relative "goodness" of future possible boards, how to elinimiate unnessesary computation, how to store previously made calculations and search them effectively.) The higher number of board positions just makes it all that much harder.
I've been following along with the matching after the fact, but haven't been able to catch any of them live. Anyone know the time?
Here's a link to the flash/PGN replays-
http://www.fritz7.de/bahrain/english/
(first came across it in levy's hackers book, did a quick search on google and came across this page which relates the story)
the story takes up from just after the arrival of the first PDP-1 at MIT (1961)
Please, why didn't they program it to kick Kramnik in the balls while at it.
The heckling is really stupid and low.
Human just won the match in my books.
Chess is only slightly more interesting than tic-tac-toe. Go is far more interesting, both for humans and computers. No contest.
This is absolutely correct. To reply to all the other posters on this thread: time is a very important part of all competitive chess. There are strict rules about the chess clock and its use. International chess specifies 2 hours for the first 40 moves and then another two hours to reach move 60, for example (IIRC). Losing on time is a very common occurrence - especially on the Internet servers. Nothing like a quick game of 2 minutes blitz to make you appreciate time to think :)
If you want to see some game played by grandmasters when in "time trouble", I'd suggest picking up the Mammoth Book of Chess by Graham Burgess for some excellent - and amusing - examples. You don't have all the time in the world - chess is a balance between concentration and speed.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
I believe there has not been a single case of a serious Go player converting to Chess. The other direction however has shown plenty making that switch. It really ends up being like creationism versus evolution, the Go proponents having by far better arguments much like the evolution proponents.
it's not as bad as the Deep Blue incident. While the programmers distracted the ref, Deep Blue threw sand in Kasparov's eyes then hit him with a steel folding chair ignoring pleas of mercy from the crowd. Sad day for Chess fans everywhere...
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
Actually, there was a link from an earlier Slashdot Chess article-that-turned-into-a-chess-vs-Go discussion.
Apparently there's a Japanese Go player who had begun playing chess as an aside and had quickly started climbing the ranks, as it were.
10 points off for his bodyguard not being thorough and checking out the playing table.
Apparently there's a Japanese Go player who had begun playing chess as an aside and had quickly started climbing the ranks, as it were.
He is/was a Shogi player, I forgot his name now. He started playing chess and within 3 years achieved a master ranking.
For those not familiar, Shogi is very similar to chess with the capability to drop pieces.
Actually, there was a link from an earlier Slashdot Chess article-that-turned-into-a-chess-vs-Go discussion.
People that compare chess to go should have a digit removed each time. They are two seperate games, both intellectual at base. Which is better, VI or emacs? At least both of those are text editors. It'd be nice to see a thread about chess pop up on slashdot that doesn't have someone say Go is better, and visa versa.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I believe there has not been a single case of a serious Go player converting to Chess.
Chess is the third largest sporting body. FIDE consists of 173 Nations, trailing Soccer and the Olympics. I think the chess camp has plenty of people converting and playing.
The other direction however has shown plenty making that switch. It really ends up being like creationism versus evolution, the Go proponents having by far better arguments much like the evolution proponents.
No, this ends up being anecdotal at best. There are plenty of people who go from Go to chess and chess to go. It's called personal preference, I personally don't like Go. I think it's a rather silly game. Some people think chess is a rather silly game. There are no arguments between Go and Chess even in the same league as Evolution vs. Creationism. One is a game, the other is a game. They both are played on a board. That is the end of their similarities.
End of story. There are no comparisons that can be validly made. Anyone trying to say Chess is better than Go is stupid. Anyone trying to say Go is better than Chess is stupid. See my point?
Go argue about apples and oranges, you'll get further in life.. it's a shame that both are pawned off as intellectual games yet "proponents" are too dense to understand this.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
The machine consists of much more than software. What about the hardware engineers? What about the guys that invented the transistor? What about the discovery of fire?
Your argument is just one level of indirection. Why stop there?
Favorite world chess champion
I'm glad the USA has shown enough decency to not bomb Bahrain during this match. I admire their restraint and hope they have the wherewithal to hold off any future bombing until at least tomorrow evening, at which point this match will be over. The fact we have not seen nor heard a single bomb land on or even near the tournament gounds is a clear sign that the USA is fully prepared to respect the rights of the people of Bahrain to host a chess match without being killed in the process. My hat's off!
is not that they somehow got Fritz Hollings brain into a computer, but that he may yet win!
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
It's worth adding here that computers do not beat human opponents at chess.
Thousands of people who have contributed to Deep Fritz's technology beat humans at chess while standing on the other side of the room, so to speak, watching.
So, all they're proving is that it takes 1000's of people to beat the 1 opponent.
Deep Fritz != Johnny 5.
This "profit" joke has gotten so old and so abused that it's getting kinda lame. You can't mod these kind of posts as "funny" any more ... because they're NOT.
as reasonable as that sounds, that is not really fair. humans can remember many positions and how they were played by grandmasters. don't think that human players dont do ply brute forcing too....
the BIGGEST difference between human and computer is how they prune branches. humans are able to quickly reduce the number of possible moves so that they are able to think through many of the possibilites, unlike many computer programs.
a technique called "multi prob-cut" was developed to help with many of the pruning problems computers experience. it uses probabalities, or essentially guessing leaf node values, and pruning them accordingly. people do essentially the same thing.
i do not think you can totally eliminate many of the methods currently used b/c ppl use many of them as well!!
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
5, informative?
/can not/ and /will never/ be brute-forced (barring radical breakthrough in technology, like quantic stuff).
Please.
> But computers are getting faster at an enormous rate.
Getting twice the speed every 18 months is nothing when dealing with exponiential growth problems.
In ten years, it may be possible to have a Go program that plays at a 9Dan level, through brute force.
You have `geek' in your name and have no fuckin clue about mathematics?
Brute forcing Go is about as efficient than brute forcing a [insert a lot of bits] long crypto key.
Look: you have a 19x19 grid, do you have even remotely an idea about how many game possibilities that makes?
Go simply
Any significant progress can only be done through better algorithms and more 'intelligent' decision making.
Please read a bit about the subject, so you won't make a fool of yourself if you talk about it to someone who has a clue. And getting '5, informative' isn't a validation whatsoever of what you think you know.
A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
As soon as they solve a problem, nobody considers it AI anymore.
"Getting twice the speed every 18 months is nothing when dealing with exponential growth problems."
Actually getting twice the speed every 18 months IS exponential growth. A simple 2^n. It's true that such growth is nothing compared to keeping up with the problem if you decided to arbitrarily increase the board size to 21x21, 23x23, or whatever, but we're trying for a half-way decent 19x19 "solution" specifically.
But, yeah, doubling speed every 18 months still leaves a lot of time for us to get a handle on things unless we get clever.
Happy people make bad consumers.
I'd mod you up.
Just so you know.
OK first of all, I don't moderate my own posts. You have a problem with how I was moderated? Don't blame me for that!
Secondly, Go WILL, beyond any shadow of a doubt, be brute-forced, barring the complete meltdown of technological society as a whole. Technology as a whole is growing at a roughly exponential rate, and eventually we'll catch up to the complexity of Go. Not anytime soon, but eventually. It's ugly, it's inefficient, but it's going to be possible (and inevitable) eventually.
As for the "geek" in my name, take a deep breath, and look at it again. It says _sword_geek, refering to my fencing days. "Geek" as a word has evolved beyond taped glasses and pocket protector-wearing mathematicians.
And speaking of math, I'm not sure what's not exponential about 2^x. Maybe it's just because I don't have a clue.
Not that Moore's law directly talks about speed of computers anyways. He was predicting the density of transistors on a chip, which you'd know if you read a bit about the subject(!). Computers are getting faster somewhat ahead of this curve, because we're also learning how to design them more efficiently, with things like large multi-path accessible caches, etc. etc.
Realistically, Go will be 'psuedo-brute-force' won by a computer long before we have the computing power to brute force it, and in fact, that's what Chess computers do right now. There are 361 different points on a Go board, but anyone who plays can list about 10-15 reasonable opening moves, and the rest will be ignored by a computer as much as they are by a real person.
Brute force? No. Intelligent play? Not really. The only point I was making to the original poster was that 'solving' Go in this way won't be any more intellectually interesting than the current state of the art in Chess computers. Go _currently_ is more interesting of a computing problem than Chess, simply because we've nowhere near the computing power required to approach anything like a brute force solution, except in the endgame.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Since the thread is about chess this post is only slightly off-topic.
I am pretty good at strategy games, they seem to come natural. I have played against people I would consider highly intelligent and they were ok.
For instance I had a friend in high school kinda geeky very intelligent. Never could beat me at chess yet he studied half as hard as I did in Calculus same grade. It was obvious he picked up Calculus quicker than I(much to my dismay) yet his chess skills always lacked. I don't think in either case it was a lack of previous experience or knowledge.
Why is this and how do you think(if it does) stratgy skills help in the real world? Just curious
The fact that Deep Fritz needs dirty tricks (distractive annoing talking to Kramnik during the game) to win, means only that computers are still worse than humans in this game. And if you recall that similar dirty tactic was used in the game with Kasparov (a perpetual modification of the program during the game--which is an equivalent of a host of pros advising Kasparov during the game)--it is obvious that it will take some time for the AI to mature to the level of a human, regardless of the outcome of the last game.
But why exactly is white better than black? (no racist karma-whore answers here please)
It does not mean anything. Come on, a simple sneeze may distract a human from thinking properly
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Yes, the computer can make a very convincing showing playing a game where 100% of information is available, such as chess (but not go, yet).
:)
But in a game such as bridge, where there is missing information, and the computer has to guess, computers are AFAIK, still woefully inadequate.
I once tried to write a spades program. The play turned out to be nearly sub-par, but the bid was ridiculously difficult to program. Not to say that because I couldn't do it, it can't be done, but me and a good partner could whip any computer opponent I'm aware of. Probably the same for bridge, even though I can't even call myself a novice player.
Of course, unless an impartial observer enters the computer's cards, you can't be sure that it's not cheating without disassembling the damn thing.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
Realize that Deep Fritz is a commercial chess program running on an 8-processor x86 machine. No special custom hardware, no multimillion dollar supercomputer. We're at the point where desktop hardware is comparable to the best human players.
Well that's a bit of a misleading analogy now, isn't it?
Aerospace wasn't then, isn't now, and likely won't soon be a consumer-driven industry. Most people aren't going to deal with three dimensions in their morning commute--flying a plane is substantially more difficult stuff than driving a car. Also, during the time you're speaking of, WWII and the cold war were the driving factors. Nothing drives development like fear!
Secondly, you're dealing with stuff that is on the cutting edge of physical boundaries. Breaking the speed of sound was a big technical hurdle, and is still a non-trivial event. Items like friction, wind resistance, fuel costs and usefulness all play a factor here too. It just wouldn't make any sense to have commuter vehicles that went as fast as 500 km/h, when we don't have the infrastructure or skill (or necessity) to support it. Computing will start to run into the quantum wall soon, but it's not a _brick_ wall.
Finally, you're exaggerating massively. The atmospheric state-of-the-art went from about mach 0.8 in the early 1940s, to about mach 2.5 in the late 1960s (SR-71 is what I'm thinking of here) If we call that a factor of three in 25 years, then in the early 90s there should have been the capability of hitting ~mach 7.5. The first reports of the Aurora spyplane came out in 1989, and it's calculated to do mach6, which is pretty decently close.
And um...MORE finally (heh), you're looking at one massive burst in an industry, which isn't typical of its growth. Computing speed has been increasing at a fairly steady rate since the dawn of the integrated circuit, if not before.
So we have a market-driven, steady growth technology with no immediate barriers (fundamental physics or lack of purpose). I think it'll keep going until we at least hit the realm of ~10-100 molecule 'computers' on the consumer's desktop.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Sure. The most accurate definition of intelligence
seems to be: That which humans can do better than
either animals or computers.
Once upon a time, computer was a job describtion.
Human beings working through calculations. Computers
were held in high regard because of their intelligence
and higher education. Now with digital computers
available, being able to work through computations
isn't a proof of intelligence anymore.
Later, people said: Now, if we were able to get a
computer that is able to match wits against the
best Chess players, I would be very impressed.
Being able to play chess is a proof of intelligence.
I know several people who play competitive chess
intensively. But I can go to a store and for a
couple of bucks, I can get a programm that they're
unlikely to beat with good settings.
Computers can never be intelligent by definition.
If necessary, the definition changes.
Can you say "profit!!"?? So for me the joke qualifies as a smart use, *not* an abuse, I found it extremely funny and appropriate.
Most people who have replied to this post have done so on the premise that processors of the future will use current computing techniques.
Take a look at this article on quantum computing. In the future quantum computers will probably be able to calculate all possibilities simultaneously.
OK, I'm sure this will annoy the hell out of people trying to make uncrackable encryption, but it will be great news for chess buffs. The aim of the game will be for a chamption to draw with a quantum computer, proof positive you have played the perfect game.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
Hardware computational technology has been advancing at an exponential rate LONG before the introduction of ICs (integrated circuits). There is no reason to believe it will stop now.
Random is the New Order.
Why oh why didn't acknowledge Fritz's offer of draw before he conceded? I thought chess tourney rules were that if you spoke at all your opponent could interpret it as an offer of draw ???
I am the Barber of Seville.
If Fritz is allowed to use Shakespeare, what if Kramnik would set up a nice, strong electromagnetic field around them ?
-- You Gotta Do What You Gotta Do
Interestingly, all the "!" (good) moves noted by the analysis team on the match site made by Deep Fritz were easily found by Crafty within a few seconds, so you've got to wonder if an 8-CPU Compaq running Crafty on Linux might have played just as well as Deep Fritz (remember that Crafty has SMP capability just as good as Deep Fritz's).
It's always the friggin same thing. Kramnik takes twice as much time as Deep Fritz to think so he has an edge in the first half of the 40 moves (and Fritz will have an edge in the second half). BUT NO, the stupid human operator ACCEPTS A FRIGGIN DRAW just before Fritz's time investment might start to pay off. ARRRRRR. I'm tired of this kind of chess.
There is exponential, and then there is exponential.
We know the branching factor of Go. We know what Moore's law projects for computers. The naive result is that computers won't be competitive with top humans from brute force alone for centuries! Not a decade like you first claimed (and a bunch of uninformed moderators voted for). Not the one after that either. Or any other decade you are likely to see in your life.
But we know something more than Moore's law. We know the basics of information theory and entropy. Unless we come up with radically different computer architectures (quantum computers etc), Moore's law cannot last that long because with the minimum heat released in flipping a bit, and the rate of bit-flipping, we will instantly vaporize our CPUs. So the time runs out on Moore's law before they get to beating humans at Go with current approaches.
Does that give you some perspective on why this problem is interesting?
Secondly, Go WILL, beyond any shadow of a doubt, be brute-forced
/FALSE/ informations get put in the spotlights as truths.
You really don't get it.
But anyway, I have to clarify why I was pissed that you got modded to 5. If don't give a shiat about karma or
whatever. What piss me off is that
But anyway, it seems the problem is with me, and if I want intelligent, informative and insightful discussions
I'd better go elsewhere.
I think I should change my nick from "PissingInTheWind" to "PissedInTheWind".
A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
What bothers me is that Kramnik pussed out in the last game.
He had the oportunity to take a sharp line that might have won for him and might have lost - instead he took a dull line that he knew would draw.
A GREAT champion would always go for the win!
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Karma contines to work OK, despite many people who claim the contrary. If it were such a failed system then why is /. still so popular?
/. has a system derived froom long use, and even more importantly, long abuse. The /. moderation system has survived a lot of attacks, automated and human, and whatever system you replace it with is bound to have some gaping flaws... so you might as well let it evolve instead of throwing the whole system out.
Myself, I have some different ideas on how I'd like moderation and karma to work, but
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I would love to see the algorithm that brute forces Go, because, currently, there isn't any. Sure, we may have the computing power in ten years to do so, but will we have the algorithm?
The problem with Go is that you can't use the traditional game AIs (such as min-max.) Most games can easily be brute forced by creating a tree of all the moves, and then creating an algorithm to traverse that tree (e.g. depth first, breadth first, A*, etc.) You could create a tree of all possible moves, but the tree would be useless since it many moves have the same amount of significance. You would end up placing lots of random pieces on the board until you can see a definite sequence of moves to capture [a] piece[s]. That, in my opinion, is not a brute force algorithm.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Each intersection in Go can have a black piece, a white piece, or nothing, making for 3^361 possible board configurations, which is around 10^172. If every particle in the universe were Deep Fritz working throughout a million lifetimes of the universe, we would still be many orders of magnitude short of brute-forcing Go.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer,
my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any
resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The
question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them
is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of
the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A
discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope
of this article.)
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...