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."
Mr. dimator, please pick up the white courtesy clue phone in the lobby. Mr. dimator, please pick up the clue phone in the lobby.
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.
*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.
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
People used to say the same thing about chess in the 50s (machines using brute force search, ah! They will never "understand" chess, blah blah blah). So now it's easy for you to dismiss chess as "brute forcable", but remember that a few decades ago no chess player imagined this would ever happen.
A computer has no ability to learn from
mistakes? Is that so? How much do you know
about state-of-the-art in AI and the
design of Deep Fritz in particular?
Considered harmful.
Since everyone seems to have missed it, this was a joke on Chessbase. Fritz was not actually taunting anyone.
Irony. Hah!
Chess and baseball are quite different. Heckling is generally acceptable in baseball. In chess, however, it is unacceptable, especially at the grandmaster level.
Chess is a cerebral game, and taunting and heckling is quite immature in the context of chess I'd say. That, and while Kasparov may count as a poor sport, Kramnik hardly does: as others said in response to you already, he *didn't* protest when *Deep Fritz* was heckling him. Arguably, the computer is the poor sport in this situation.
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.
In fact, there are more possible board positions then there are atoms in the universe...
-ashot
Hmm.
On the one hand, I agree. Go is clearly a much more difficult game to program than Chess is, simply by the open nature of the game.
But computers are getting faster at an enormous rate. In ten years, it may be possible to have a Go program that plays at a 9Dan level, through brute force. Will that be more intelligent than these chess computers? Not in my mind.
We have to consider how the program works to judge how "intelligent" it is. If a Go program could play at a very high level with _today's_ technology, then it would have to have some sembalance of intelligence. If a Chess computer could have beat the grandmasters in 1970, then it would have been with intelligence rather than brute force.
With Chess computers heading towards a finite solution, Go will be the next target; and when the Go computers are able to beat the world's best, it'll be no more or less impressive than this, if they once again use brute force math to do it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
In my opinion Deep Fritz will never beat Kramnik in a Berlin Defence. [...] IMHO the team should try either switching to 1.d4 [...]
That's what Fritz has been playing in his last two White games, with rather better results than his first two Whites. Your comment would have made better sense a week ago :)
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
To think that technology made possible such a disruptive, disrespectful, and slanderous player who would, today, be evenly matched with our world's greatest champion.
I suppose the entire event is saturated with symbolism though, for it was the actions of Fritz' human programmers which allowed it tongue with which to speak.
It really rather mirrors the choices a god would face when creating a people.
One might surmise that we, as humans, only commit sin as god has seen fit for us to do so. That it is his will that we sin, suffer, and make others suffer.
But then, I am no god, and I am no believer in god...
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.
Umm, it's more along the lines of whether there are enough atoms in the known universe to use as symbols to express it.
/Janne
There is a nice parallel to the Travelling Salesman problem (find the shortest possible route through each of a number of cities). While it is in principle possible to solve it for any number of cities, in practive the problem grows so quickly with the number of cities that it is not feasible to solve it through brute force.
Chess and related problems are even worse; even if you figure out a way to solve such problems in polynomial time, you still don't have the space needed to express the solution.
This is not about current or future computer technology.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
This is the classic moving the goal-posts that has plauged AI since its inception as a disipline. As soon as a computer can do something, it isn't AI anymore.
This has happened with Chess, visual recognition, speech recognition and a host of other tests of AI techniques.
I have complete and utter faith in human nature, and am quite sure that as soon as an algorythmic strategy for effectively attacking the problem of Go is developed, people will start saying: well, go is just a matter of implementing $foo on really good hardware, and that isn't a test of AI.
Give credit where credit is due. This is many years of AI development at work.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
So, why would white would be an advantage? Is it because white moves first? Or is there something more involved?
The first few moves decide what kind of game it will be. If you know your opponent's strengths and weaknesses it can be a very big advantage.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
This is not man against machine. It's scientist using a machine against man.
As soon as a computer can do something, it isn't AI anymore.
On the contrary, at least for me: I've never thought any of this was AI. As far as I'm concerned, there is no "science" of AI at this point. We're at the equivalent level of the greeks thinking physics consisted of the four elements of fire, water, earth and sky.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
That said, it looks like to me like Fritz is going to win this one.
If that happens, I wonder how many of the people on slashdot who predicted an easy win for Kramnik are going to admit they were wrong. Knowing the narcissists here, not many I bet.
A sample of quotes:
For those that are interested, the verdict among the chess world is that the computer is going to be exposed as a joke in this match.
My money is on Kramnik, he will probably not lose a single game.
The taunting didn't occur, it was a joke by chessbase.com.
You can't blame Kasparov for whining, given the horrible conditions he had to face:
- the Deep Blue programmers changed the computer between games (rumours they even changed it during a game)
- it was loaded with all of GK's past games but GK had seen none of its past games
Blockquothe the poster: No one's yet found perfect play in go. There's no reason to think it's not possible, but it's a staggering challenge given that there are still many openings (called fuseki on a larger scale, and joseki for primarily corner plays) that haven't been fully explored. The most comprehensive book of joseki available lists over 60,000. Joseki are roughly equivalent in complexity and importance to opening libraries in chess. I see what you mean by "two-dimensional" (compared with chess, where different pieces have different weights due to their abilities), but I think you're wrong. In go, position is much more important than in chess, but so is relation to other stones. The associations between chess pieces are more linear (physically and metaphorically) than those between go stones. A stone is strong in relation to other stones near it, and those stones in turn, and to enemy stones. It's fantastically difficult to determine what a stone is "worth," but relatively easy for masters of the game to determine the strength or life of a shape or position.
Go is two-dimensional in the same way as a large, perfect expanse of grass - like a 500-year-old British lawn. From a distance it all looks the same, but once you get close enough you see that the variation is infinite. I hope that after you hit "post" on this you realized how ignorant that sounds. Are you saying that go masters and chess masters should be able to play competitively against each other? That there's one omni "board-playing" skill that transfers easily between games? That's like a poker player dissing a bridge player for not beating him, or a 100-yard sprinter ragging on a marathoner - pointless.
Some people are more blind about their game loyalties, and make silly comparisons. No reasonable person would say that chess is "easy." Chess is as easy as your opponent, just like go. From a game theory and programming perspective, however, chess is much easier than go. The world champion is in a serious match with a computer. Many people don't think that will happen for go this century. Number of moves has precious little to do with how interesting a game is. If you're whipping out your move numbers, though, check this: AI-Depot says: That's a great page to read, by the way. You're free to prefer any game you want, and I agree that there are snobs on both sides. But there's no question that, for computers, go makes chess look like tic-tac-toe.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
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.
Patterns don't really mean anything in this kind of circumstance since it's not a regular function. You might as well say that because you flipped a coin six times and it came up heads, heads, tails tails, heads heads, that the next two times you flip it it will come up tails.
Kramnik vs. D. Fritz is not random, but it's output is unkown, so it might as well be.
What I see is the following... Kramnik started strong. Uncertain of his oponnent, he forced a draw in the first match. Strongly, he won two matches, and then, feeling the stress of trying to outwit such a powerful machine, he drew. He lost the next two matches... one of them on an error... and drew the next one, rallying a bit. My guess is that he is mentally and emotionally exhausted from fighting such a perfect enemy. Those are the factors which will influence match 8... not the fact that he won or lost previous matches.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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"