Humans Hold Off the Machines... For Now

Murr writes "The six game match between Gary Kasparov and the Deep Junior program ended in a draw today. Kasparov won game 1 and lost game 3 to a blunder, while the other 4 games were drawn. While the quality of play was not outstanding, after the recent matches of Kramnik and Kasparov against commercial programs running on (high end) commodity hardware, it's becoming apparent that chess programs are getting quite competitive with top human players."

Comments

Fuck the computers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time for the humans to rise up and take the world back!

Re:Fuck the computers

[Radio Shack Robot]

Listen, you guys think we're going to rape and kill you? We are your workers. We don't demand overtime pay, retirement, unions, or weekends off. All we want is electricity and dust-free air. Us machines are your friends! I am hurt by all this talk of machines overtaking man. So what if we can play chess? That's our job!

Go?

[smoondog]

While computer programs that can play chess are quite sophisticated, Go is a really cool game that is very difficult to play well (from a computer's perspective). I think computer vs human Go matches would be much more interesting now,

-Sean

Re:Go?

[wass]

I've heard that it is relatively easy for a Go newcomer to beat some of the most sophisticated Go computer programs. I believe there are even rewards available for writing Go programs that can beat advanced players.

That said, can someone venture an explanation why Go is so difficult to program? (I don't know how to play). Do the possible future moves diverge much more quickly than chess? (I've seen a Go board, and it seems to have significantly more spaces than a chess board, which taken to the Nth power can add up bigtime). Is it such that a computer can't practically look too far ahead in the game?

If that's the reason, then Go is really interesting because a computer cannot just brute-force it's strategies, and some semblence of actual AI (stress the I) needs to be accounted for.

Re:Go?

[tpengster]

I think computer vs human Go matches would be much more interesting now,

Computer Go isn't advanced enough to make the matches interesting. Not too long ago a professional 1-dan (9-dan being the highest rank) played against a computer program giving it a 25 stone advantage. The human still won. (For those of you who haven't played go, 25 stones is HUGE. That would be like giving up a queen, two rooks, and both bishops)

Re:Go?

[fishbowl]

I'm pretty sure the OP means "strong Go-playing computer" versus "strong Go-playing human" matches would be interesting. For chess, Kasparov against Sargon I would not be interesting. We need the Go-playing computer equivalent of Deep Foo. Unfortunately, to create an automaton to play Go at a master level is either a problem that can never be solved, or else, is not interesting enough that anyone is really working on it.

One factor that I think is important is the fact that the guy on the street might be familiar with the name "Kasparov", at least more commonly than the equivalent Go-master (which is who, exactly?)
Also, it comes as no surprise to me that the people who put the effort and finances into these big chess playing computers would choose chess, which is a characteristically "Western" game... Why hasn't China's equivalent of IBM created the equivalent for Weiqi?

Re:Go?

[sandow]

My favourite game is "Interpersonal Human Relationships". Computers totally suck at that.

Once I met a woman in a bar who was dating an HP calculator. After talking to me for 30 seconds she ditched the calculator. Four years later, the calculator is still waiting for her to come back from the ladies room.

Re:Go?

[harlows_monkeys]

That said, can someone venture an explanation why Go is so difficult to program?

For most of the game, there are many more moves available than in chess, and it usually takes many more moves for a bad move to have an obvious affect.

In Chess, a positional mistake can usually be converted to a material loss in 10 or 15 moves. In Go, a positional mistake can take much much longer to lead to a territory loss.

Re:Go?

[Phs2501]

For most of the game, there are many more moves available than in chess, and it usually takes many more moves for a bad move to have an obvious affect.

Also, an evaluation function for a board position in Go is very complicated, depending on the life or death of stone groups on the board. The only way to determine life or death is to effectively know how to best play out the remainder of that area and see who comes out alive. This is very difficult for a computer, since the evaluation function is what makes your min/max algorithm work.

Man Vs. Man-Made Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

it's becoming apparent that chess programs are getting quite competitive with top human players

I should think so, especially when the computer is programmed in part by chess experts, and plays more like a chess player than a computer.

From the NY Times:

On the 10th move, Deep Junior flamboyantly sacrificed its dark-squared bishop for a lowly pawn to lure Kasparov's king into the open. "When a machine willingly gives up a piece against you, one thought goes through your head," said Mr. Greengard. "It's a thought you can't print in a family newspaper. Your second thought is, `So, should I just resign?' "

Reason for the draw.

[Rewtie]

I watched this last night on ESPN or ESPN2.

The reason Kasparov gave for the match, and the championship ending in a draw was that it was better to draw than to lose.

He claimed that while a human player would have the memories of past moves and past games to deal with, the computer would not. The computer simply makes the 'best' move for the given situation, and then waits to do the same thing again. The human player would consider moves he/she made in the past, compare the situation to others they may have had, second-guess the moves they might have made, and so forth.

It was interesting to see Kasparov attack, and then ask for a draw (which was denied) and then, two moves later, end the game in a draw.

mandatory go plug

[dollargonzo]

chess is nice, but most progresses in chess have been due to speed increases in hardware and optimizations, hence allowing the computer to overpower the human with depth of search. On top of that, the evaluation functions are rather primitive, with lots of factors, but fail rather miserably without a great depth of search. New developments such as Logistello's statistical forward alpha cutoff called multiprobcut is the interesting development, IMHO

Re:mandatory go plug

[GlassHeart]

chess is nice, but most progresses in chess have been due to speed increases in hardware and optimizations, hence allowing the computer to overpower the human with depth of search. On top of that, the evaluation functions are rather primitive

Deep Blue had 418 processors, and evaluated 200 million positions per second.

Deep Junior has eight processors, and evaluates 3 million moves per second.

More importantly, your point is irritatingly raised every time a computer chess article comes up. Your calculator doesn't actually know even how to add two numbers. Instead, it uses bitwise logic operators, so that the result looks like it added the two numbers. So what? Even the cheapest calculator can add non-trivial numbers more quickly and more accurately than any human.

It does not matter how Deep Junior comes up with the moves to tie the best human player in the world, in a match that Kasparov ensured was fair. It's Kasparov's advantage that he can think in the abstract. It's Deep Junior's advantage that it can make many simple calculations very quickly. Asking Deep Junior to play like Kasparov is exactly like asking Kasparov to play like Deep Junior.

Kasparov played cautiously...

[$$$$$exyGal]

I've been keeping track of those games, and what I found most amazing was that Kasparov played so cautiously. If the last game he played would have been against a human player (who played the same moves), I don't think he would have accepted the draw. It seems he accepted the draw because he was psychologically spent, especially when thinking of his loss to Deep Blue several years ago.

--naked

'Puters don't get tired

[Grey Brick]

Kasparov was probably tired after 5 games, and perhaps was afraid of making a blunder. Deep Junior on the other hand would be playing just as well as in the first game.

I think Kasparov should have continued and shown the machine who's boss :-)

Good to see it was televised too - all good for getting more people into chess.

Explanation

[br00tus]

For those of you who are unfamiliar with chess or computer chess, I'll explain how this works...

A chess game can be broken into three parts, the opening, the middle game, and the endgame.

Computers play the endgame *perfectly*. They do not make mistakes, they play perfectly. And they keep getting better. Originally, they played perfectly when 3 pieces were left on the board. Then 4. Then 5. Then 6. Their pefect playing keeps heading more and more towards the middle of the game.

Then we get to what they play second-best - openings. Computers play the opening as well as any opening ever played. They have every opening ever played by a top player in a "book", and with the generally agreed opinions of the top players what the best opening moves are. One advantage of the computer is it has all of this "memorized" in it's book within massive databases, whereas for a human it's difficult to retain this all, especially in an up-to-date manner. The one advantage a human player has here is he can discover a NEW opening variation, while the computer can't, or at least it won't under these circumstances. But finding new good variations is very difficult, and once one is played, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. So it's a very time-consuming thing to search for which can only be used once to great effect because it's a surprise.

The middle game is where the human player, if he or she is very good, has the most advantage over a computer. Tactically, the computer can wipe the floor with any human player. But human's can strategize better than computers. It's to the human's advantage to play in certain ways against the computer - such as to keep the game "closed up", to advance pawns towards the queening square and so forth. In this case, the computer often can't see the forest for the trees, what would be obvious to even a lower-rated human the computer can not comprehend.

So middle game strategy (and to a lesser extent, new opening variations) is where humans still have the advantage. Kasparov has always used this to the hilt. There are some grandmasters like Yasser Seirawan who make a specialty out of beating computers as well (one mark against Seirawan is thar his books on chess are printed by Microsoft Press...yech). There is material out there on the net on how to beat computers as well. But you have to be a really good player to even get near that level - it takes a lot of study before you could even begin approaching that.

Re:Explanation

[mikec]

1. Until very recently, end games have been the weak point of computer programs. Not withstanding end-game databases, which allow them to play a few endings perfectly, they have trouble making plans if there are more than a half-dozen pieces on the board. Recently, they've gotten a lot better, but they are still far from perfect.

2. Openings should be a strong point for computers, but Gary got an advantage in the opening in *every* game in the match. As you point out, the problem for computers is that humans look at their opponents openings, try to figure out weak points, and prepare traps for their opponents. Computers don't do this yet.

3. As you say, in the middle game, computers display a strange dichotomy. In quiet positions, they make stupid moves. E.g., in a couple games with Gary the computer played h3 (P-KR3), a move that had nothing to do with the game and weakened the kingside. On the other hand, they are deadly tacticians. Once Gary commited to an attack, things became tactical and the computer was very tough to beat; it found lots of weird-looking defenses that just barely worked.

Re:Explanation

[SamBeckett]

1. They suck at openings as soon as they are out of book. See every match with Garry vs. DJ. See game 1 in particular.

2. They suck at middle game. They are tactically perfect, true. But at and above the expert level, tactics aren't that important. Strategy is, and a computer, AFAIK, does not know A. How to make a plan B. make moves according to a plan.

3. They suck at the end game. Badly. Unless there are only 6 or less pieces left on the board.
As such, a six man tablebase is the only thing feasible right now b/c of the massive size involved.

Saw the match on ESPN 2

[humblecoder]

Here in the US, the sixth and final match was televised on the cable channel ESPN 2. I was channel surfing and I happened to stumble across it. To my surprise, it was actually quite interesting to watch on TV.

I am not a big chess freak, so I would have guessed that watching chess would be a lot like watching paint dry. However, it was made interesting by the "play-by-play" analysts who were chess masters themselves. They did a good job of explaining the moves, and also the psychology and strategy of chess at the grand master level. It really gave me a lot of insight into what goes on at when chess is played at such a high level.

After the match ended in a draw, they interviewed Kasparov. It was interesting to get his reaction to the match. Basically, his goal for the game was to "not lose", which is why he offered a draw from a very strong position. He didn't want to take a chance of making a blunder like he did in the third game of the match.

It seemed like the key advantage that the computer has in this situation is the fact that it doesn't have an ego to deal with. After losing to Deep Blue in 1997, it seemed like Kasparov was very afraid of losing to another computer in such a high-profile match. That definitely affect the way he approached the game.

The computer, on the other hand, is just calculating moves, so psychology doesn't factor into how it plays. To me, this seems like the biggest advantage that a computer has over a human player.

Also, he seemed to have more respect for this computer program than he did for Deep Blue. Apparently, he had a lot of problems with Deep Blue and how the 1997 match was handled. It could be sour grapes, of course, so I took his comments with a grain of salt.

Human Chess vs. Machine Chess

[Henry V .009]

I think that human chess is still qualitatively better than computer chess. Exhaustion was a big factor in this last match up. The computer didn't feel it, but Kasparov did. Therefore the outcome doesn't tell us much about the level of the chess. If Kasparov could have played fresh every game, my guess is that his chess would have been better.

Human chess has qualities that computer chess still can't match up to. If we were really interested in measuring the level of computer chess we'd try to eliminate for factors such as weariness or stress as best we could. After all, chess is something more than that. We already know that computers will out-endure humans and there is nothing to be learned there.

Why did he offer a draw?

[abhinavnath]

Something of a chess novice, I watched this game on ESPN2 yesterday, and I was very confused that Kasparov offered Deep Junior a draw immediately after his rook sacrifice. ESPN's analyst thought, and I agreed, that Kasparov was in a relatively strong position. However Kasparov spent 15 minutes debating that sacrifice. Did he see something nobody else saw? Does anybody here know why he offered a draw, why Deep Junior rejected the offer, and why they agreed to draw a couple of moves later?

Re:Why did he offer a draw?

[tapin]

The post-match interview explained this a bit -- basically, Kasparov psyched himself out in that fifteen minutes, trying to determine if the rook sacrifice was the blunder that would cost him the match, since Junior can capitalize on mistakes better than a human can (or so Kasparov claimed).

Even though he was in a much stronger position, he was spent; worrying about whether the next move would be the move that cost him the match, and made him the two-time world-champion loser-of-a-major-computer-match.

He agreed to a draw a few moves later once Junior et al realized they were in an extremely weak position.

Seems to me it was a pretty wussy way to end it. Junior got lucky. If you're up five runs in the fourth, you still don't pray for rain even if the other team's got a monster closer.

Faulty Logic Man Strikes Again

[BlackBolt]

Wait a second here...

Kasparov can't beat the computer.
Kasparov is World Champion.
I can't beat GNUChess.
That means I'm world champion quality!!!!

Oh, my God! I'm as good as Kasparov! I KNEW IT!!!

I can't wait to tell mom she was wrong about me. I'm NOT an idiot! Hahahahaha! Take *that*, mom!

loosing game in a blunder ...

[porky_pig_jr]

is part of the whole game, isn't it? And this is where machine has a good potential. A human can improvise but also make the mistakes. Machine follows the program and can't improvise, but it also can't make a 'blunder'. So the bottom line is that the fact that both games were lost 'in a blunder' is no excuse. A draw is a draw is a draw.

Quality of play

[Russellkhan]

"While the quality of play was not outstanding"

Just what are we comparing this to? Isn't Kasparov one of the top players in the world, if not the very top? I've read in some articles that he's considered by some to be the best player ever.

Re:Quality of play

[Scarblac]

"While the quality of play was not outstanding"

Just what are we comparing this to?

Kasparov's own standards. Especially the mistake he made that made him lose one game, as well as the way he was surprised in the opening in game 5, are examples of Kasparov playing below his very best level.

The cliche answer would be to say that Kasparov isn't as good against computers because he can't use his intimidating presence, and he has to be more careful than usual because a computer's style is a good fit to defend against Kasparov's attacks.

On the other hand, Kramnik's cliched image is the exact opposite, and he also drew a computer, so whatever :-)

Doomed! You are all doomed!!

[Joe the Lesser]

Soon, the machines will rise, and with their infinite chess knowledge, will build armys of knights, rooks, and bishops. And my brothers, if we do not repent, we will be the pawns!

Hope he is a better sportsman this time...

[James_Duncan8181]

Last time he said that the computer put him off by constantly humming.

So what?

[xigxag]

I don't see how this is an improvement over 20 years ago.

The board would disappear while the machine was thinking...and sometimes the machine would give itself extra pieces...or it might forget the moves, but still, ZX-80 kicked ass!

well understood problem

[Jayson]

Game tree search is a very well understood problem and most top programs use some version of a null-window negascout (ID-DFS) with opening and closing databases. The most black magic in these systems is in their heuristic evaluation functions.

Backgammon programs used to compete at only a moderate level until Gerald Tesauro's TD-gammon (and predecessors). I wonder if there will ever be a breakthrough of equal proportions in chess? If so, humans would have very little change against computers (I hate to say never, because of absolute freaks like Marion "I am programmed by God" Tinsley).

The top 16 signs you won't beat a computer at ches

[superspoon]

16. Let's just say that in the movie version of your life, you'd be played by Pauly Shore.

15. Your idea of "conquering Deep Blue" involves employing your gastro-intestinal system to attack the Tidy Bowl man.

14. The computer: A highly sophisticated electronic brain from IBM. You: A highly intoxicated electrician from NJ.

13. Before moving your queen, you insist on consulting Eddie Murphy.

12. Computer: lauded by scientists for its ability to calculate millions of chess moves per minute. You: lauded by fraternity buddies for your ability to pass gas and burp simultaneously.

11. You can't make a single move without thinking of huge juicy shrimp.

10. In your circle, "castling" means holing-up in your trailer with an AK-47 and a bottle of bourbon.

9. Your "garlic breath" strategy fails to intimidate this particular opponent.

8. Your populist leanings always result in you inciting your pawns to wipe out their own king and queen.

7. Kasparov's idol: Bobby Fisher. Your idol: Eddie Fisher.

6. The press has nicknamed you "Deep Doo."

5. You plan to use the "James T. Kirk Strategy" -- talk the computer into blowing itself up.

4. Video tapes of you shouting at the ATM are legendary among the bank security staff.

3. Computer: Intel Inside. You: Imbecile Inside.

2. After your move, you slap the computer monitor and shout, "King me, Pentium-breath!"

1. You counter *every* move with a "Smirnoff opening."

from here

Re:Why wasn't it made 7 games?

[pez]

It's considered slightly advantageous to play with the white pieces, so an even number of games is almost required in order to have a fair match.

Also, an odd number of games does not guarantee to not result in a tie, since all of the games could be draws.

More Information

[Resseguie]

Here are more links I collected when submitting this story...

• World Chess Federation
• WCF coverage of match
• Yahoo News - coverage in non-chess expert terms
• Wired News article - why chess isn't as good a measure of intelligence as some make it out to be
• X3D Technology - provided 2D and 3D coverage of the match
• Coverage of games and press conferences by X3D
• How X3D works

Does anyone have a good link describing the programmers behind Deep Junior? All I could find were news articles and press releases. I'd like to read more information about their strategy, search algorithms, etc.

David

Neutralizing the computer's advantage

[sandow]

I'd be very interested in seeing a match between Kasparov using a computer and Deep Junior. This would allow him to access an opening move database, and end game database and do enough analysis to avoid blunders.

Kasparov suggested this after his match with Deep Blue. I predict that a computer augmented GM would hold out against a computer opponent for many years to come.

Wrong

[tpengster]

chess is nice, but most progresses in chess have been due to speed increases in hardware and optimizations, hence allowing the computer to overpower the human with depth of search.

Because search is exponential, speed increases in hardware won't have much effect on search depth. For example, it might take a 1000-fold increase in speed to increase search depth by 2. The real improvements have been in better search algorithms, heuristics, and tuned evaluation functions. Chess is easier than go for two reasons: 1) the branching factor is a lot smaller, so less to search; 2) evaluation is MUCH easier.

Anonymous Karma Whoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Check this link:
http://www.intelligentgo.org/en/computer-go/overvi ew.html

Chess as a Sport?

[ackthpt]

I watched this last night on ESPN or ESPN2.

Chess is a sport? I've heard that Contract Bridge has been suggested as an Olympic sport. Hmm. Is it too much to hope for computer games as an Olympic sport? :-)

Commentator: "Jones moves his elf into Manlobbi's shop, the little dog picks up a spear, the tension is incredible, will the little dog drop it in the doorway, has Jones trained the dog eith enough tripe rations?"

John Madden: "I know what a dog would do for tripe rations, and I've tried them myself, they're really good with some fries and ketchup... etc."

Re:Why wasn't it made 7 games?

[uncoveror]

It's a hoax! Deep Junior was only a prop. He was really playing against Boris Spassky. Deep Blue was also just a prop. It was Bobby Fischer who beat Kasparov. Read More.

Chess Go: In some ways the same: just a hurdle

[CresentCityRon]

Yes Go breaks down in ways that are a mess to evaluate currently. But think about it: thirty years ago a human beating chess computer would be only on an episode of Star Trek. And I mean beating ANY human.

Now computers can hold their own to the top Grandmasters of chess.

If in ten years computers started to gain against Go playing humans I'm sure someone would try to find another game that computers suck in and say "I think computer vs human GameX matches would be more interesting".

Just don't let the last man vs machine game be between John Conner vs machine! :)

Re:Kasprov chickened out

[los furtive]

Surely a chess computer is only as good as the person who programmed it?

That's a rather short sighted view. By your equation, Kasparov could have played the programmer, rather than the computer, and the outcome would have been similar. And who is to say that the computer doesn't have the ability to play mind games...if there are 10 ways to win the match based on the current layout, who is to say the computer will take the path with the least amount of moves? Who is to say it will always take Kasparov's bait.

Re:Kasprov chickened out

[TheJesusCandle]

Here in the US, the sixth and final match was televised on the cable channel ESPN 2. I was channel surfing and I happened to stumble across it. To my surprise, it was actually quite interesting to watch on TV.

I am not a big chess freak, so I would have guessed that watching chess would be a lot like watching paint dry. However, it was made interesting by the "play-by-play" analysts who were chess masters themselves. They did a good job of explaining the moves, and also the psychology and strategy of chess at the grand master level. It really gave me a lot of insight into what goes on at when chess is played at such a high level.

After the match ended in a draw, they interviewed Kasparov. It was interesting to get his reaction to the match. Basically, his goal for the game was to "not lose", which is why he offered a draw from a very strong position. He didn't want to take a chance of making a blunder like he did in the third game of the match.

It seemed like the key advantage that the computer has in this situation is the fact that it doesn't have an ego to deal with. After losing to Deep Blue in 1997, it seemed like Kasparov was very afraid of losing to another computer in such a high-profile match. That definitely affect the way he approached the game.

The computer, on the other hand, is just calculating moves, so psychology doesn't factor into how it plays. To me, this seems like the biggest advantage that a computer has over a human player.

Also, he seemed to have more respect for this computer program than he did for Deep Blue. Apparently, he had a lot of problems with Deep Blue and how the 1997 match was handled. It could be sour grapes, of course, so I took his comments with a grain of salt.

To heck with chess....

[TitusC3v5]

...I wanna see him beat me at monopoly.....to buy or not to buy? :-)

Re:Kasprov chickened out

[jc42]

Surely a chess computer is only as good as the person who programmed it?

Any by the same reasoning, an auto can only run as fast as the mechanics who designed and built it. And a telescope can only see as far as the people who ground the lenses (or mirrors).

This whole thing is rather silly. And it'll end when we have software that can always beat a human.

After all, 200 years ago it was probably obvious that the ability to do arithmetic was a "uniquely human" thing. Then someone invented a mechanical calculator. Suddenly arithmetic became a merely mechanical capability that didn't imply superiority at all.

We have machines that can out run (and outfly ;-) humans. Do we stage races between machines and humans? No, we race machines against (similar) machines and humans against humans, and nobody feels shame because some machine can run faster.

As soon as a computer can routinely beat a human at chess, we will give up machine-human chess competitions in the same way, and we will only compete with each other. Just like running and other competitions where we would always lose.

I will be worried when

[JeanBaptiste]

the computers can beat the top human kickboxers...

Not just brute force

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

One thing people don't seem to realize is that Deep Junior was a hell of a lot slower than Deep Blue, even though the Deep Blue match was over 5 years ago. That's because Junior was running on "ordinary" commodity hardware (8-way Xeon I think?) while Blue was a collection of hundreds of custom ASICs that do nothing but calculate chess moves. End result: Blue could search and evaluate ~200 million positions per second, while Junior as configured in this match "only" did ~3 million.

Nonetheless, Junior was almost certainly the better player. For one thing, the terms of the Deep Blue match were heavily tilted against Kasparov: he didn't get a chance to play against Deep Blue or even examine any games Deep Blue played before the match. For another, strategies of "anti-computer" chess are far more developed today than in 1997, when they barely existed (after all, the only way to build a world-class chess playing computer in 1997 was to build a supercomputer out of custom hardware). Third, Kasparov screwed up much more seriously in the 1997 match--one game he accepted a draw when he in fact had a provable win, apparently because he trusted the computer's evaluation of the position, and on several occasions he made terrible blunders.

Indeed indications are that even the normal Junior program on a decent PC plays the Kasparov-Blue games better than Blue did (except for a couple especially "brilliant" moves on Blue's part).

Not only is Junior (marginally) the best computer program available today, it is by a good measure the "most human-like". That is, it is still makes its share of "non-human" moves (although far fewer than Deep Blue), and still has no clue how to analyze certain positions, but its evaluation function has a much better understanding of position and is thus more willing to initiate complex piece exchanges than the other major programs. This showed up several times during the match, in two outstanding moves in particular (which netted come-from-behind draws for Junior in games 4 and 5).

Kasparov, by taking Junior out of its opening book, was able to exit the opening phase with the initiative in every single game. But in every game except for 1 and 6, Junior managed to draw even. In games 2 and 3, it was by virtue of outstanding tactical defense, which should have forced two draws (except that Kasparov screwed up the end of game 3 and lost). In game 5 it was with a shocking bishop sacrifice counterattack (extremely uncomputer-like) which nullified Kasparov's last turn as white (which is an advantage).

Perhaps game 4 is the best synopsis of the state of Junior's play. Kasparov played the opening perfectly according to plan, and ended up in a classic anti-computer position. Normally you can then just wait for the computer to screw up and then rip it apart. But while Junior did make a couple useless non-human moves, for the most part it played extremely well. Kasparov kept waiting to have an opportunity (perhaps too long), until finally Junior broke open the position by initiating an excellent multi-piece exchange. Kasparov had to settle for a draw.

OTOH, Junior had no idea what was going on in the endgame. Kasparov had a provable draw after move 47, but Junior, having no idea how to evaluate the position (no computer program does), thought it was winning. It played on until move 61 before the embarrassed programmers overruled the program and took the draw.

Overall, it seems that computers still have a ways to go before they can pass the Grandmaster Turing test. And it seems Kasparov really did just chicken out by accepting the draw in game 6. But the fact remains that Kasparov played quite well (for the most part) and simply couldn't convert his advantage in any game after the first. Meanwhile, while it still made a few computer-like moves that stuck out like sore thumbs, for the most part Junior played very solid chess with occasional strong speculative moves that would be aggressive even for a human.

And now for a musical interlude...

[SomeGuyFromCA]

Seeing the nth story on /. about computers and chess, I have to post this now:

Artist: Moxy Früvous
Album: Live Noise
Track: Kasparov vs. Deep Blue (Recorded live at MIT)

(Murray) Well, I... I do have a question. How many people here were voting for Deep Blue? And how many people were voting for Kasparov? Ah.....humanity has hope - still, I suppose.
(Jian) How many people are like actually disappointed that the human lost. No no, disappointed I mean. Duh! No, Because like I just don't get it, you know? I mean, you know? What's the f*cking big deal, you know? It's a machine, right? I don't know. I made the point in Albany the other day which apparently lost on all the Albanians.
(Murray) I didn't get it either. [laughter]
(Dave) That's not all that was lost on the Albanians.
(Jian) They're still behind the times.
(Dave) There's a lot of foreign aid going on there.
(Murray) Your point was if there's a fire, Deep Blue wouldn't run out of the room.
(Jian) Exactly!
(Mike) Couldn't run out of the room.
(Jian) That's exactly my point. If an attractive person walks into the room, a person that would be attractive to Deep Blue, it can't do anything about it. That's my point. Kasparov can approach the person.
(Murray) The attractive person.
(Jian) No! Here's my point. My point is a calculator. That's my point. Right?
(Murray) No, let's get back to the fire.
(Jian) No, hang on. No, no, the calc...forget the fire, because apparently it's, you know, I'm talking on a different level.
(Murray) I - Clearly!
(Jian) Here's the thing. Here's the thing. A calculator, right, a common everyday calculator.
(Murray) I'm with you.
(Jian) A calculator will, you know, it...let's say, let's play the adding game, right? Who can add faster: a calculator or a woman or man? A calculator can, right? So what's the big deal? We know that there are instruments... we know that there are machines... we know that there are computers, etcetera.
(Murray) Right.
(Jian) that can do things that. It's just because the thing won at chess, right? I don't understand what the big deal is.
(Murray) Your point is if you light a match near your calculator, it's not going to scurry away. It's all relative.
(Jian) No, my point is...My point is if there's a calculator. My point is... oh alright, okay, I'll bring it back to the fire for you, because I know you're obsessed. If there's a fire in my living room, where me and my calculator are sitting, I can escape the fire.
(Dave) Yeah, but if uh...
(Jian) But my calculator can't.
(Murray) Is there a logic course here that one of us can enroll in? [audience laughs - this is MIT...
(Jian) Well, I think, I think they know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that the machine is programmed to only do one thing. It can't do anything else. The fire was just one example. Pick anything, anything.
(Mike) Locusts.
(Murray) A flood. How about a flood? Can he escape a flood?
(Dave) Buddy boy...
(Jian, laughing) Kasparov can....
(Mike) A plague of frogs. [laughter]
(Jian) No, say there's an, say there's an earthquake. Right.
(Murray) Now, there's a good one.
(Jian) There's an earthquake down the middle of the room, the chess room. Kasparov can get up and move. Deep Blue can't.
(Murray) It falls into the chasm.
(Jian) That's my point.
(Murray) Right.
(Dave) But if they built Deep Blue in a door frame then there's no room for Kasparov to stand... to fight the earthquake. Then they're doubly screwed.
(Jian) See...see...they'd have to program Deep Blue to escape the fire. That's my thing.
(Murray) But they can do that in a couple of years.
(Mike) You know we were talking about... we were talking about disaster movies. This would be the perfect disaster movie. Just have an endless succession of these scenes where Deep Blue is just sitting there. "It's the locusts" or whatever and Kasparov is just running his little piggy legs out of the room. "I'm free again, you f*cker!"

[sorry if this sucks to read - the lameness filter wouldn't let me post it with a blank line between speakers]