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."
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.
evolutionary neural networks are pretty damned cool. You have a generation of networks compete against each other, then keep the best ones and kill off the rest. They you make mutant copies of the good ones and have them compete against the original good ones. Then repeat until you have a good neural network.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Isn't it sad that people who post links feel the need to post as AC's to keep from being modded down as karma whores?
Positive moderation, people! Positive, not negative!
That said, it looks like to me like Fritz is going to win this one. I would say that Karmnik is showing signs of fatigue from playing against a 'perfect' oponnent. If I were him, I'd try to take a few days off before the next match to regain his mental and emotional endurance for the last match.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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?
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.
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.
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?
What are you on about???
Kasparov was a whiner, a jerk, and a bad sport. This was known long before he started competing against computers.
Kramnik, on the other hand, has given chess a good name again. He's been polite to those around him, and conceded his mistakes when he's made them.
What did he do? He didn't say a word about the rumoured Shakespeare taunting, as far as I can tell. If he did (and it was true), he could probably get Fritz disqualified entirely; but instead, he's playing chess to the best of his abilities.
Or am I wrong?
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Yes, having white is considered an advantage by most because you have the first move and you can maintain "initiative", that is you can dictate to some degree what direction the game moves in and keep up pressure on black. Of course one sub-par move and black may seize the initiative.
Celebrate the finer things in life
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!
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.
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..
I found it interesting that Kramnik won two games before Fritz won any. I would expect the reverse to be true if Kramnik were playing an unknown opponent. Perhaps Kramnik has blown his lead on probing Deep Fritz's play in the recent games, and is going to get a relatively dull win in the critical game. Game 6 would have been really great if he'd pulled it off; fork the rooks, then sacrifice the knight instead of taking either, and then win? You're not going to see moves like that from a computer any time soon. So maybe Kramnik was trying to totally out-style the computer, and will now go back to trying for a victory without one of his moves marked "!?"
Yes, it's pretty sad when the computer seems to have a more vibrant personality than the human player :)
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.
I don't think it's as easy as you think to anticipate a computer's moves simply because there's still a computer scientist behind it, changing the strategy before each match. Additionally, before certain matches the programmers may opt to insert some pseudo-random variation before each move, such that if one move is only ranked *slightly* better than the next, the computer may take the next with a certain roll of the dice. Good point though, the computer definitely has not been analyzed by Kramnik nearly as much as Kramnik has been analyzed by the computer.
"I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
Of course the article is a hoax. One of the "features" of Fritz is its slightly snotty comments and it used to be marketed as "Fritz the Talking Chess Program." This was introduced several versions ago when the audio was more of a novelty.
(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)
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.
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).