Slashdot Mirror
Humankind Makes Last Stand Against Machine
MrZeebo writes "According to this Financial Times story, Garry Kasparov has begun another match against a computer chess program on Sunday, this time playing against the Israeli-developed Deep Junior. Kasparov is the highest-rated chess player of all time, and lost to Deep Blue in 1997. According to the article, Deep Junior, despite evaluating less moves per minute than Deep Blue, is considered to be a superior chess player. The match will span 6 games, the last one being February 7th." Kasparov has won the first game.
they do exactly that: they put computers against each other. and it typically doesn't take an hour, a microsecond, or the end of time. they usually abide by the same rules governing FIDE world championships. and yes, these tournaments typically result in the creation of better chess software.
look at the development of fritz, and deep junior, for example. or hell, why not try looking something up on google? it can't be that difficult, can it?
deep blue was dismantled after its rematch with kasparov. deep junior has been winning all the computer chess tournaments for the past three years.
had the editors of the almighty slashdot bothered to read my infinitely more entertaining and informative story submission on this match, they might have had this interesting link included in their story, amongst other informative and titillating urls. this particular link will show the replay of today's game, as well as live broadcasts of future games.
boo to the editors.
yay to herrd0kt0r.
herrd0kt0r for prez.
How can they really tell which computer plays better chess?
Read the second to last paragraph of this. Or just read "Deep Junior is a three-time world champion and won the last official world chess championship for computers in July".
There was a good attendance and a great deal of media coverage today for game one, particularly considering it was a national holiday in the USA. (Well, almost.) Kasparov had the white pieces in game one, which is an advantage. (Interestingly, the Deep Junior team won the drawing of lots and could pick which color to have in game one (and 3 and 5), and chose to start with black.)
He completely dominated the game, it was a total stomp. He played 'real' chess instead of the dubious anti-computer style he used against Deep Blue in the 1997 match. Anti-computer chess involves trying to reach positions that computers don't play well instead of just making what you think are the best moves. Deep Blue showed that computers are pretty much beyond being vulnerable to these tricks nowadays, although every once in a while you'll see a strong program play like an idiot in a position it doesn't understand.
Kasparov prosecuted his advantage very quickly. In the press conference afterward he showed how much he had learned about playing computers. One key, he said, is that a computer doesn't understand results or practical chances, it only understands the evaluation of the current position. So instead of trying to swindle a way out of a bad position like a human Grandmaster would, by creating maximum chaos and hoping the other guy makes a mistake, a computer just tries to find the 'least-worst' move all the time. This is the only effective way for computers to play chess, but in inferior positions it often makes them look completely docile, if not pathetic.
He won't be able to do this in all six games, of course, and he'll probably lose one just because a human can't play error-free chess for so long against a strong opponent and computers punish errors ruthlessly. But game one showed he's prepared to the gills, as usual, and along with the fact that he's the strongest player in history should give him a decisive edge.
You can watch the games live with my commentary (and that of other commentators on-site as I relay their words) at many places on the web. Most of it is directed toward the level of the casual fan, not the chess expert. The company I'm working with, ChessBase, publishes Deep Junior and just about every other top chess program. (The program Fritz just drew an eight-game match against the world's #2 rated player and current world champion, Kramnik, in October 2001 in Bahrain. I was the webmaster and commentator on that match as well. I think I prefer the cold here at home in NY to the Bahraini humidity.)
As for the Deep Blue versus the current micros debate, that will be eternal as long as Deep Blue is in pieces. It was obviously much more powerful, but that doesn't mean it was a better chessplayer. We only have six games as evidence of its strength. They were good, but they weren't godlike and Kasparov said at the opening press conference that when you go over those games with Deep Junior it's clear that it plays better in just about every moment. (Except for two, which are the moves Kasparov has always suspected were the result of human interference. But that's another kettle of conspiracy.) Deep Blue was far, far ahead of its competitors in 1997, but computer chess programming has not stood still for the past six years.
It's also worth noting that what constitutes a huge advantage in computer-computer competition does not always translate into play against humans. A processing power advantage of just 10% between two identical programs will cause a lopsided score, but even a fourfold increase in processing power usually only means an extra 30-40 rating point gain against open competition. That is, one more win out of ten games.
I've spoken with Deep Blue's architect and other members of the IBM team on several occasions. Their egos are almost as big as Garry's! Hsu's book on the building of Deep Blue is almost as partisan as Kasparov's comments. They are both very competetive people. Personally I don't think there was any human interference in the DB match, but IBM's secretive and heavy-handed behavior needlesssly created a great deal of circumstantial evidence and suspicion.
You can follow my reports and photos on Kasparov-Deep Junior at ChessBase.com and I'll also be posting bits and ends at my site ChessNinja.com.
A chessboard is 8x8, meaning 64 spaces. However, each space can contain a pawn, a rook, a bishop, a knight, a king or a queen of either colour. The best estimate for the number of states the board can be in is 2.99x1041.
A naive encoding is 96 bytes per state. Let's say a tighter, or compressed encoding is 48 bytes per state. So a rough estimate as to the total storage space it would require is 1.44x1043 bytes.
In words, that's about 14 million billion billion gigabytes of data. I'm not going to say it'd be impossible to build such a storage mechanism in the forseable future, but I will say it's incredibly unlikely, and would be mindbogglingly expensive. And with modern technology, would require more matter than is actually on the planet. So no, dynamic programming wouldn't be useful in chess at all. Proving once again that if it were as simple as that, somebody would have thought of it already.
Out of interest, consider Go. This is a board where dynamic programming really would be useless. With around 10750 possible states, it would require significantly more atoms than are actually in the entire universe.
Anthropomorphism.