Slashdot Mirror
Kasparov OpEd On His Latest Match
molrak writes "Garry Kasparov has written his thoughts and observations on the difference between his recent battle with Deep Junior as opposed to his battle against Deep Blue, including some of the fundamental differences between the two programs. If you missed out on the event, you can catch up with it at the site of the event's sponsor, including both 2d and 3d viewing options. (Note, viewing options require both site registration with x3dworld and proprietary Microsoft software.)"
Why the warning about "proprietary microsoft software" ... it's pretty much common sense that if you're going to be viewing 3D simulations, it's probably only going to be created for a single OS, and that OS is going to be the most popular OS on the internet.
Creating 3d models isn't difficult. Creating a series of 3d models isn't difficult either, but its more time consuming. Creating a series of cross-platform 3d models is likely too much to ask for a FREE site.
Video for Online Dating Profiles
GameTab - Game Reviews Database
And one soul addressed to 666 Luicifer Street, Seattle, WA.
Coming up with a chess program to beat Kasparov mercilessly just isn't fun anymore. I say we put more research into writing a chess program that will make him cry while beating him mercilessly
Bowie J. Poag
has its championship end in a tie? Pretty outrageous. And no rematch announced!
Don't get me wrong, I'd be a worthless player without the books, I'm just saying I prefer a "real" (by which I mean 3D) game to a 2D overhead view shown on a computer screen.
"Note, viewing options require both site registration with x3dworld and proprietary Microsoft software."
Even if I already have my own 3d specs?
For instance, in chess, there are a finite number of moves. Now, let's oversimplify the issue so I can make a point. With these finite number of moves, the computer can run simulations and try every single one of them. A human might consider a very small subset in any given situation whereas a program can keep a database of moves and results, which will lead to an understanding of what move is the 'best', as defined by the probability that it will lead to a winning situation. Thus, with a simple table lookup - not really artificial intelligence - an application can consider moves that the original programmer would never consider. It's a very simple type of learning but I think it shows my point.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Kasparov seems to think that making a powerful chess machine would constitute creating a machine with the power to "think." I hardly believe that to be correct, and moreover .. with enough proccessing power, a computer could map out chess moves far further into the future than kasparov could ever hope to.
.. where does one go after they realise that chess is only a little game?
I guess the real question has more to do with
If it were as simple as "the computer is no better at chess than those who programmed it" well then those folk be better than Kasparov. I'm guessing even that whole Deep Jr. team might not be so convincing playing (collectively) as humans against Kasparov.
What do you think of as a practical application, by the way? (Serious question)
How the hell does chess in 3d do anything?
I think it has something to do with making chess more interesting than it actually is. I really don't think chess was ever really meant to be a spectator (sport ?).
You get super powers just by rubing that stuff in? You'd a thought you would have to freebase it
>>the computer is only capable of doing what a human programs it to
With that logic:
--the human is only capable of doing what nature programs it to
Your argument is nonsensical and shows a lack of knowledge about AI. If you study computer science and cognitive psychology you will see that humans and AI programs use some very similar algorithms in many regards, including game playing, object recognition, and planning. Both humans and computers use search as the main algorithm in chess playing, though the nature of the heuristics and search tree pruning is different. Human brains and computers are both computational devices and have the same theoretical limitations on information processing.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
i thought unreal tournament did that already with bots.
An interesting lesson in PR: How a massive company can excel in technology, make a best-of-breed machine, and still fall flat on its face because of corporate secrecy and mismanagement of information.
Yup, I think IBM bungled that one up pretty good. They win against Kasparov with an incredibly powerful machine, and then take their machine apart. Refused to divulge further information. Refused to play a rematch. I wonder who at IBM thought that corporate secrecy and indifference was going to win them good will of the community? Or maybe they had something to hide?
So, does secrecy make for good PR? Did this give a black eye to IBM?
The three stages of a chess game are "opening", "middle game", and "end game". In summary, computers will always be far superior in the opening and end-game, because they can play those parts of the game perfectly. The middle game is where humans will always have the advantage.
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
You assume that there is such a thing as an "unsolvable" game. This is not, as far as I know, established. There are certainly things with a near-infinite number of potential solutions, but this is not the same as being unsolvable. Even subjective things (such as producing pleasing music) could theoretically be solvable given enough neurological data (i.e. a computer could use the data on how the human brain interprets music to compose music it knows to be pleasing to at least a certain segment of the population).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Chess, like many sports, isn't enjoyable to watch if you don't know what's going on. Sure, you might have a basic understanding of the rules of the game, but if you don't know about strategy, tactics, etc, you won't see the genius behind the moves made. Sometimes you won't "get it" until a few moves later, since most of us can't see as far ahead as Kasparov or Deep Junior.
Don't be so quick to judge something as "trite and dull" unless you're talking about yourself.
-azmaveth
I don't "get" the fascination people have with computers playing chess. Searching a game tree is not something I find overly impressive. The root problem (the tree searching algorithms and such) is somewhat interesting, but the computer isn't playing chess in the same way as a person. I don't really care how far down into a tree a modern processor has time to search. It doesn't indicate any sort of "intelligence" in the holy grail sense of AI. Chess is a very limited, structured problem.
My calculator can find nth roots faster and with greater precision than I can...should I be fascinated by that as well?
I'll be truly impressed when a computer can show the creativity necessary to beat Bobby Fischer at developing crackpot political theories.
-- "The reward of suffering is experience." - Aeschylus
Call their methods, arguments and practices shoddy, shady, and sketchy.
This sounds like a whine to me. He's pissed that he didn't win, but it's OK, since its "for science".
-1, Crap
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
> chess. how bout it. woo. how trite and dull. it's > one thing to play a game, quite another to watch a > couple guys (or one and a computer) fight the same > scenario over and over The above is true if chess is not YOUR game. Those who are trully interested (i.e. at least: members of a club, chess book readers etc.) find it to be quite interesting to follow.
The point is that the computer doesn't actually apply any more skill than its human creators - its advantage lies in the ability to process gazillions of iterations within the timeframe of the match. The creators could do the same thing, they'd just die of old age before making a handful of moves.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Any chessheads know what Gazza is talking about here? Which game was it that he suspected intervention from Blue's handlers?
The submitter didn't scour the web properly. You can view the games with professional commentaries with nothing more than a Javascript enabled browser at these links:
Amir Ban annotation
Karsten Müller et al
Kasparov really socks it to IBM in that article. I'm surprised at this reaction, considering that they probably paid him a LOT of money to go toe-to-toe with Deep Blue.
On the other hand, it was pretty shallow of IBM to barely beat Kasparov, brag about it, and then DISMANTLE the historic machine! Considering the would-be artifact status of Deep Blue, I would have expected more from these people.
At any rate, I'm just glad to see that the brute force approach is being abandoned for better heuristics. Anyone can write minimax for chess, the only special that IBM did was dump a couple million into hardware.
njord
Well, I was interested in watching the matches but not really interested in installing a proprietry viewer or installing media player 9.
Where's the ChessGML version so I can view it using SVG?
Chessbase has an interesting interview with Shay Bushinsky, one of the programmers of Junior.
I'm not a nerd, nerds are smart!
why the hell is this funny?
"the computer is only capable of doing what a human programs it to." I'm a Computer Science major currently taking an Artificial Intelligence course at Ga Tech. I am by no means an expert, but from what I have learned so far the ultimate goal of AI is to program programs that can deal with situations that they are not specifically programmed to deal with. AI isn't as simple as having one huge if/else if statement block. Or I should say, GOOD AI isn't about that. In my class we are currently learning "old" stuff, and all of that simply uses the computer's speed to make up for their lack of ability to produce algorithms anywhere near as good as whatever is going on inside a human's head, or even in some cases a fruit fly's head. Even a game as apparently simple as Chess (when compared to real life situations) has an enormous amount of possibilities, and while lots of computing power can search through those well enough to produce results like Deep Blue produced, that approach quickly becomes impractical with more complicated situations. The reason that Deep Junior is such a big deal is that it is using a lot less computing power than Deep Blue, which means it is a step in the direction of lessening AI's dependence on raw computing speed. "So what, it's chess" you say. Well, going to the moon in and of itself was rather pointless too, but all kinds of spin offs were produced which made the project worthwhile. That is the point that Kasparov is trying to make. It isn't beating Kasparov in chess that is so important, it is what we learn in getting there. The hope is that what we learn will be applicable to more meaningful situations.
but I'm hearing a lot of 'the computer can only do what you tell it to' type posts... but I don't think it's that simple.
The computer can look many many moves ahead from just about every possible angle and see where it could go. from there, it figures out what move will give it the best chance to win, at least mathematically.
That doesn't exactly show a computer learning, but it does show some level of intelligence.
I remember hearing before that the computer can look at all the past moves also. By doing this, the computer 'learns' the guy's style and can come up with a strategy for beating it... doesn't that show a lot more intelligence?
Maybe I'm wrong and the computer is just looking at all the possible moves, but if the computer is learning his strategy, then I beleive that's really close to intelligence.
anyway, I dont' think a lot of people will be sold on the idea until the computer gets up and kicks the guy in the head or scratches an itch.
Of course, in games with even more exponential growth in possibilities (such as the Japanese game go), it will probably be a number of years before AI programming can catch up with the masters.
What do you think of as a practical application, by the way? (Serious question)
3D real-time virtual midget porn. With force feedback.
When this becomes a reality, my life will be complete.
How does some silly board game bring me closer to that elusive goal?
...that,the tournament fizzled out(kind of got under the radar screen of the Newsance(nuisance)generating US Media),because it resulted in a tie. NewsWeek,on that occasion,touted Kasparov to be the Human Brain's Last Stand This time,there was no such thing.Juss a cursory column in WSJ(oh,check the referring site,will ya!). It sort of puzzles me that he still grouses his loss against a measly machine,after all! oh well..whaddever!
Heh .. seriously.
Back in November 1996 the IBM Research guys exhibited DeepBlue at the IBM CasCon conference in Toronto. They had the program play a "top Canadian GM" and it dutifully defeated him.
It was an exhibit in the demo section and anybody could play against it. While it was the very same software it was on a much slower RS/6000 hardware.
I played against it, and of course got defeated very soon. I think around 17 moves but I don't recall correctly.
This was after the Philadelphia match that Kasparov won 4-2 but before the rematch that was marred by controversy. The IBM guys said that on game 1 they had somehow or the other omitted to bring the "opening book" and had to ftp it over a slow connection. They only got it in time for game 2. Still believe Deep Blue won game 1 ! Apparently Kasparov was shaken and then walked the streets of Philadelphia all night long and promptly won the next game.
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c. 10.html
As an IBMer (although I joined IBM about 1.5 years since) and a chess fan I am disappointed that the team refused to open up the project to more scrutiny. I still hope and believe that there was nothing inappropriate.
Achived when the computer gloats loudly at you during and arfter the game :P
imagine how shot your nerves would be when the computer booms
"I Have calulated your game 10000 moves in advance make your move puny human!"
Because we have a sense of humor?
Thanks.
I'd bet 100:1 (for Kasparov) on a match where he has to play each of them and loses if he loses a game to any of them.
It's trivial to write a brute force chess program and with infinitely fast computers it would beat (or tie) anyone or anything that played against it.
It does seem the Juniour developers have sone some interesting things to make their chess engine much more efficient than a brute force chess engine; I'd love to hear what they've done other than 'it make non-computer-like moves'. They may have a good chess strategist/programmer; perhaps a brilliant one but they don't tell us how their engine works so... yo Stallman, kick his ass!
Practical application? Just doing things because they can be done.
So? Follow the match on own chess board - a far more satisfying experience.
Using computer generated 3d to visualise a board layout is no more useful than having colour in newspaper's chess column.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
D'oh. Follow it on your own chess board.
It seems that Kasparov is bitter about losing in 1997 and is trying to get IBM to release the source for Deep Blue to check to see if the moves it made in thier match are actual coded instructions.
He blatantly states that he thinks Deep Blue was fiddled with. He just wants some proof.
The Turk was a machine from the 18th century.
A magician had apparently created a machine that could beat anyone at a game of chess. Before the match he would open up the machine and show everyone an array of complicated gears and machinery.
The machine would then beat the person at chess.
People believe that it was actually a very talented midget who would sit inside the machine and watch the game played via magnets. Unfortunatly no one has been able to study the machine because it was destroyed in a fire.
Maybe Deep Blue is the modern day Turk.
Chaos theory can be used to prove it.
The most trivial ( and for AI purposes useless) example is the single fair toss of a fair coin.
Parchisi is a more advanced version. It is not resolvable to a guarunteed set of moves to ensure victory ( a draw being provably impossible).
This is why games involving chance are so popular with the, ummmmm, populace. A five year old can beat an 80 year old who has been playing parchisi all of his life. Whereas the 80 year old will *never* lose a game of tic tac toe to the five year old, because it is not only solvable, it has been solved.
Various form of games of cooperation are also unsolvable because it isn't even possible to define in advance what the goal is, let alone a stratagy to achieve it.
Your point of view ( and that of many AI researchers) relies on the concept that universe is a predictable machine if one simply knows all the parameters, whereas it is now known that even if all the parameters are known results may be fundamentally unpredictable.
KFG
The reason that computer chess fascinates so many people is exactly because brute force doesn't work. The possibilities are so enormous that you can't even begin to look at them all.
In the most recent Man vs. Machine match, the computer was actually slower than Deep Blue. Yet it played amazingly good chess. Unfortunately Deep Blue isn't still around, so we can only speculate that Deep Junior is the superior program.
Humans are slower still; MUCH slower. And yet we can, in many cases, play better chess than computers. The difference is that chess masters know instinctively which moves to consider while machines are stuck looking at a huge number of moves. The holy grail of chess AI would be to finally come up with program that can cut down the number of moves to consider just like the human brain can. Such a breakthrough would be a landmark achievement in AI and would have tons of practical applications outside of playing chess.
I can agree with you on one point, though... chess "technology" probably puts too much effort into the game tree searching aspect of the problem.
Most of the effort is being put towards better position evaluation algorithms, etc... In this way, chess programs are being improved by basically tweaking algorithms we already have and hard-coding in the programmer's own knowledge about the strategic value of certain positions. Things like "doubled pawns are bad" and "in a locked pawn structure a knight is worth more than a bishop".
If we're going to make real progress we definitely need to move away from those approaches and start trying to get at the previously mentioned "holy grail" of chess. Brute-forcing human players to death shouldn't be the goal. We should instead focus on how the human mind approaches such an impossibly huge problem, and still manages to kick the computer's ass.
Hey guys, see if you can get Gary to consent to an interview on /.
I know the question I would ask:
Given that "they" say computers own the opening and the endgame, while masters own the middle, what would you think of a match up of 2 chess programs and 2 grand masters (yourself being one) - with the computers to advise, but the master to make the final decision? Who would you want to play against (man and machine), and what program would you choose to be your assistant?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Now for the more stupid thing: Where did you hear that "white win has been proven?" I think you're full of shit. All the evidence I heard points to black always being able to force a draw. But what would a proof of either look like?
And if you do a search for how many posts here have mentioned that go programs are easier to beat than chess programs, you will see why you must now be shot.
A scientific test. Everybody's preparations would be done openly. There would be joint post-game analysis with an emphasis on whose strategy worked better.
A sporting test. Everybody's preparations would be done in secret, to hopefully surprise the opposition. Post-game analysis would be done seperately by both sides, with spin thrusters fully engaged.
Kasparov does competitive chess for a living - he can't approach these games in a scientific quest-for-knowledge mode. Note that he gets paid competition rates for these games.
What he clearly wants is for him to be able to treat the computer teams as full-out adversaries, but for them to cooperate with him and give away anything they discover about chess. That way, they can't become a threat to him or his sport.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
quoted from the slashdotted http://www.mit.edu/~mkgray/head-explode.html
How To Tell If Your Head's About To Blow Up
From the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS, May 24, 1994
MOSCOW -- Doctors are blaming a rare electrical imbalance in the brain for the bizarre death of a chess player whose head literally exploded in the middle of a championship game!
No one else was hurt in the fatal explosion but four players and three officials at the Moscow Candidate Masters' Chess Championships were sprayed with blood and brain matter when Nikolai Titov's head suddenly blew apart. Experts say he suffered from a condition called Hyper-Cerebral Electrosis or HCE.
"He was deep in concentration with his eyes focused on the board," says Titov's opponent, Vladimir Dobrynin. "All of a sudden his hands flew to his temples and he screamed in pain. Everyone looked up from their games, startled by the noise. Then, as if someone had put a bomb in his cranium, his head popped like a firecracker."
Incredibly, Titiov's is not the first case in which a person's head has spontaneously exploded. Five people are known to have died of HCE in the last 25 years. The most recent death occurred just three years ago in 1991, when European psychic Barbara Nicole's skull burst. Miss Nicole's story was reported by newspapers worldwide, including WWN. "HCE is an extremely rare physical imbalance," said Dr. Anatoly Martinenko, famed neurologist and expert on the human brain who did the autopsy on the brilliant chess expert. "It is a condition in which the circuits of the brain become overloaded by the body's own electricity. The explosions happen during periods of intense mental activity when lots of current is surging through the brain. Victims are highly intelligent people with great powers of concentration. Both Miss Nicole and Mr. Titov were intense people who tended to keep those cerebral circuits overloaded. In a way it could be said they were literally too smart for their own good."
Although Dr. Martinenko says there are probably many undiagnosed cases, he hastens to add that very few people will die from HCE. "Most people who have it will never know. At this point, medical science still doesn't know much about HCE. And since fatalities are so rare it will probably be years before research money becomes available."
In the meantime, the doctor urges people to take it easy and not think too hard for long periods of time. "Take frequent relaxation breaks when you're doing things that take lots of mental focus," he recommends.
Although HCE is very rare, it can kill. Dr. Martinenko says knowing you have the condition can greatly improve your odds of surviving it. A "yes" answer to any three of the following seven questions could mean that you have HCE:
Does your head sometimes ache when you think too hard? (Head pain can indicate overloaded brain circuits.)
Do you ever hear a faint ringing or humming sound in your ears? (It could be the sound of electricity in the skull cavity.)
Do you sometimes find yourself unable to get a thought out of your head? (This is a possible sign of too much electrical activity in the cerebral cortex.)
Do you spend more than five hours a day reading, balancing your checkbook, or other thoughtful activity? (A common symptom of HCE is a tendency to over-use the brain.)
When you get angry or frustrated do you feel pressure in your temples? (Friends of people who died of HCE say the victims often complained of head pressure in times of strong emotion.)
Do you ever overeat on ice cream, doughnuts and other sweets? (A craving for sugar is typical of people with too much electrical pressure in the cranium.)
Do you tend to analyze yourself too much? (HCE sufferers are often introspective, "over-thinking" their lives.)
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Why is it so much more difficult to design a system that crushes people in Go? Shouldn't that be considered a more interesting endeavour?
I'm not convinced that a human is capable of solving the halting problem in the general case. In a case where the human can trace all possible execution paths, or deduce other things about the program's behavior, it's solvable, but a computer can solve the problem in these cases as well. In short, give me any particular program that a human can solve the halting problem for, and I'd bet you can codify the logic used so that a computer can do so just as well (and given enough samples, code a general computer program with the same power as the human in this domain).
Basically, to prove your point, you'd need to show that humans have some processing power strictly greater than that of a Turing machine, which is a somewhat controversial thesis.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm aware that there are unsolvable games; more specifically I was questioning the existence of unsolvable-by-a-computer games that are nonetheless solvable by a human. That is, for any given game, the computer should be able to play as well as or better than a human player. For unsolvable games, this simply means emulating the heuristics a human player uses.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's speculated (by some anyway) that much of human "intelligence," in this example the comparatively excellent middle-game play, is essentially an extremely advanced pattern recognition ability (Kasparov's famous quip that he only analyzes 2-3 moves/second, "but they're the best ones"). Certainly computers have nowhere near this good pattern recognition currently (they have trouble even consistently recognizing faces under different lighting conditions and angles, something humans do effortlessly). However, I see no reason why it is in principle impossible for computer pattern recognition to meet or exceed that of humans, and thus excel at tasks that require it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
...because it kept insisting Fischer had a computer in his shoe while playing!! It wouldn't shut up, and they had to put it down... all very embarrassing for IBM. No wonder they kept it quiet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I would really like to see the developers of chess playing programmers try Computer-Assisted chess. The really interesting aspect of computing (to me) is the human-computer interface. Computers are supposed to help us, make us more efficient and effective.
Why not pit two teams of a human with computer against each other and see how the much more interesting the problem becomes. At this point its not just brute force vs. intelligence. Programs and their interfaces will have to be customized to the player.
Or as different as Deep Blue and a chess playing Wookie. "Let the wookie win!"
Do you need a website upgrade?
So that's why the tachikoma in GITS:SAC episode 8 decides it's playing chess rather than go versus Togusa... cute :)
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
So what, he's arrogant? He's also done a lot for the chess world. And, quite frankly, he's the best chess player since B. Fischer (yes, still better than that upstart Kramnick).
The simple fact is, that when people talk about the best chess players ever, there are two candidates for #1: Bobby Fischer and Gary Kasparov. Since they've never played each-other, we don't know who's better than who, and it's a topic of unsubstantiated speculation.
Regarding Bobby Fischer, I'm tired of hearing about his anti-semitism. Bobby Fischer is himself half-Jewish, and is friends with several Jewish people, despite his anti-semitic beliefs. Irrelevant of the man's political beliefs -- which he's entitled to, like the rest of us, think whatever the fuck he wants -- he's still one of the greatest chess players of all time.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
There are some pretty good machine learning techniques that can do things like that. Some start with more hints than others, and some work better than others. It's definitely a very open area of research.
I'd also note that if computers can do this, however, it's imposing stronger requirements on them than on humans -- most humans learn a great deal of things from others rather than deducing them on their own from basic rules or first principles, which is in some ways akin to programming a computer with strategies.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
When a Computer can beat a GM without an exaustive move library. The problem with the move library and deep tree search is that in the event of strong matches and algorythmic solutions is the choice being made is the one either derived by the human player in the recorded match.. not by the chess program itself. In the event of mathmatical solutions such as the limited end game scenarios this is rearly any differant than a human/human game especailly between masters... though as computers get progressively more copmutational power they are able to mathmatically solve an end game with more and more pieces which is kind of like a computer being able to sort faster and more acurately.... not something indicative of intelligence.
When the chess program can take nothing but its knowledge of the rules and its own experience and re-creates or improoves on the same decisions when presented with classic game states then Tourings challenge will be trully acomplished.
To me the accopmlishments of Deep Blue and Deep Junior are somewhat akin to a computer being able to sort a list faster than a person. Its apples and oranges, a computer has yet to truly play a game of chess in my book. They have however very effectively indexed and to some extent abstracted massive game archive records to effectively choose from past sucesfull HUMAN decisions.
Again its impressive.... but when they can create those decisions in ignorance of what has been done/tried before and can consistently make the same level of decision without haveing that database it will be truly unreal.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
...is the write up that Deep Junior made on its observations of the match. It really tore Kasparov up, I think it was bitter, claiming a computer was feeding Kasparov answers. I heard Kasparov blew Deep Junior off at a chess match some time ago, preferring to go play with its old friend HAL instead...
I think to make the chess program pass the Turing test it would have to be able to understand when it's feasible submit a draw, and how to evaluate a draw proposal. This would exhibit the human behavior associated with "taking chances" and evaluating risks.
I think during the Kasparov/Deep Junior tournament that the Deep Junior program creators were evaluating the draw proposals.
Other attributes to make the chess program seem like a human player would be to add simulated fatigue and rare miscalcuations.
Also, did IBM state their chess program was all about accomplishing the Turing test, or were they just trying to make a program that could beat a top-level human player? Or were they trying for both objectives?
I think Kasparov should read this book. He is getting ridiculous about his conspiracy theories. World does not revolve around him. He is beaten, goal achieved, the programmers of Deep Blue have lives, too. And I am not surprised that they want to keep Kasparov out of it.
ato
I just pulled that out of my ass.
It certainly makes no difference to any of my arguments.
KFG
So as computers slowly overtake the best players, will Fischer random chess draw more attention. In this randomc chess variation, the inital piece configuration is randomly determined (within certain parameters to make it still have some of the same strategic elements of chess) and the same for both players (much as the way it is will regular chess). Bobby Fischer developed it to get rid of the the opening advantage the is gained with massive studying and memorization. It basically eliminates the idea of an opening sequence since there are thousands of different initial boards. However, good opening principles still dominate (piece development, king protection, pawn structure, etc).
I think it is a great idea. It also leaves a huge advantage for good master level players over machines, since an opening book is virtually eliminated.
As a response to your challenge, I have just now asked it some basic questions about the world political situation, and some subjects which tend for one reason or another to accumulate conspiracy theories. I will leave you to judge the results.
mcc: Why does George W. Bush want to invade Iraq?
megahal: Jim morrison is hiding in the midst of a mass of energy.
mcc: I see. And what is the connection between Jim Morrison and Iraq?
megahal: Jim morrison is hiding in the larger society, relationships between women within the next two weeks.
mcc: Could that be considered an act of terrorism?
megahal: W00t w00t w00t?
mcc: Please stay on subject.
megahal: Jim morrison in in the end it doesn't work for you.
mcc: Is Saddam Hussein hiding weapons of mass destruction?
megahal: Don't pay attention to your car, ma'am?" "will that be considered an act of terrorism?
mcc: What would you say is the role of the international oil trade insofar as the current situation in Iraq goes?
megahal: By virtue of this subject.
mcc: Do you think Osama Bin Laden is working with Saddam Hussein?
megahal: Grand theft, genocide, racism, initiating the destruction of a mass of energy.
mcc: Left alone with any weapons of mass destruction he may have, do you think that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to the outside world?
megahal: Insofar as capitalism has created a world spun purely out of me and get bored eassily its veryt hard to find this here beach! Man's got a job interview in like 30:00 so if you distribute copies of the international war crimes tribunal at the hague that the term is not only a good bot.
mcc: Why do France and Germany wish to wait before allowing military action in Iraq?
megahal: I can tell you that you think jm should do with me and i vote.
mcc: So enough on Iraq for the moment. In the late nineties, Bobby Fischer claimed that several thousand dollars of his memorabilia had been stolen by an International Jewish Conspiracy. What are your thoughts on this?
megahal: He could not find a way to destruction.
mcc: What are your thoughts on the Scientologists?
megahal: One of the world jewish conspiracy?
mcc: What happened to Rudolph Hess?
megahal: Few of the tower of babel.
mcc: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand?
megahal: And my mistake is that roles depend on the scientologists?
mcc: What are your thoughts on the Roman Catholic Church?
megahal: This has happened to rudolph hess?
mcc: Who shot Malcom X?
megahal: Feng and english are your thoughts on ayn rand?
mcc: Thank you for your time.
megahal: Wait..what..i am so confused.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Just curious, but what is the big deal about posting these brute-force chess matches? AI, sure, cool. But given enough thrust, a rock will fly too, y'know...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I wish he could have better expressed his feelings toward IBM. One could be left with the feeling he is slightly ambivilent his experience with them...
Moderators need an additional choice: "Karma Whore" for people who cut-and-paste articles as their comments!
How good is Deep Blue/Junior at poker?
Computer opening books are based on human opening books. There would be so many possible lines, that there would effectively be no more use in memorizing individual opening lines. If there is no human opening open, then there is no computer opening book.
Fischer random would spur research in learning opening lines automatically, but the further you get from the ending, the harder it is to tell the value of a position. Computers may have opening books, but they would probably be so shallow that they aren't worth the effort.
It is almost guarenteed to reset the bar for computers, though.
He sees it as a way to bring back creativity into the game and move away from the memorization. I hardly see it as a bad thing. It should be who can play the game best, not who can memorize the lines.
And it does make a difference. IMs/GMs specialize for a couple of reasons, one of them being that it is impossible to memorize all opening lines.
I presume that's why we have so many Anonymous Cowards in here!
But more seriously, what % of Iraqi's have economic and physical access to these cafés? What monitoring takes place within Iraq to detect dissident net users? Do the cafe's offer cryptography and anonymous surfing?
And seeing as though I am going to get moderated to hell anyway, here's a poll result (telephone poll as part of a much larger poll on irish politics) that made my week when I read it on Sunday in the Irish Independent (can't find it online unfortunately):
Who do you fear most?
Bush: 60%
Saddam: 39%
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Slashdot is just amazing. Nobody whines about having to use Apple's proprietary software which ruins Win32 machines, but they whine about using MS's stuff.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
[2]
_____________
[1] CrazyBird is Feng-Hsiung Hsu, one of Deep Blue's two programmers.
[2] Interview with Hsu. [http://www.chessclub.com/event/crazybird1.html]
a computer won't be able to beat kasparov or anyother chess player any time soon, although i believe it could be done easily. If any company were (stupid enough) to _really_ sponsor a project that could beat a human, it would be sucide for said business. Who is going to be the evil comapny that builds a machine greater than man!!!!... i can just hear the mobs now...
I think that we have had this balance for a while but _choose_ not to accept our fate(think cloning).
sig is broken try again tomorrow
Not only would Fischer beat Kasparov, but so would Morphy, Steinitz, Alekhine and Capablanca (if resurrected and allowed to briefly brush up on modern insights).
This is incorrect, humans are faster over multi-dimensional and special problems where the sets are non-linear.
Humans are good(fast) at abstract set reduction, which helps a lot in chess.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
He was refering to the terrorists, not the passengers.
It would be more unnerving to Mankind to prove that humans don't have "processing power" greater than that of a Turing Machine.
I feel so relieved that I'm not just an algorithm.
For those interested in Computer Chess, there is a tournament starting shortly: information here
Well, this is a common argument and there's a simple escape : yes, the computer isn't any better than those who programmed it...if the programmers had the ability to think for the thousands of years of subjective time required to play chess like Deep Blue. (That is, it would take thousands of years for a human to work out the problem like it does)
Presumably a self improving AI would be subject to the same argument. Sure, it wouldn't be any smarter than the people who programmed it (and taught it)...if the people had a few spare million years and the ability to change the workings of their own minds. You can tell this argument to the kill-bot when it comes for you, I'm sure it'll be amused for the microsecond it takes to process it.
Recently there was an interesting game between Kramnik (who beat Kasparov) and Deep Fritz, a multiproc derivative of the German Fritz 7 chess program (evaluated to be a better player than Deep Blue).
:-P
In contrast to Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, Kramnik was allowed to study the program beforehand and was allowed days off in the tournament for resting. In turn, the Deep Fritz team was allowed to change the program's opening strategies during the tournament.
The first half went to Kramnik 4-1 (3 victories, 2 draws), but then the DF team realised Kramnik had always exchanged queens early on to suit his favorite style (of playing strong positions with the strongest individual piece out), modified the program's opening strategy to be more careful with the queen, and the end result was a 4-4 tie.
Google may come up with something if somebody is actually interested in chess.
I watched the Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue match. I kinda had the impression that Kasparov was sort of a whiner when he lost but I also think that IBM owed him a rematch. I mean, Kasparov was playing that machine year after year and then, when Deep Blue finally won, IBM immediately dismantles the machine. It didn't make IBM look good in my eyes.
I also got the impression that Kasprov didn't really prepare as much for that match. Perhaps he had taken victory as a given after years of win after win.
Also, whiner though he may have been, he did make some legit points about access to the game logs, etc.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Still, the brute force approach - where you examine every single possible path - will always do at least as well as, and probably often beat any "algorithmic" or heuristic search. (Given unlimited resources.)
That's why we should be investing in ways to increase resources, instead of wasting time with clever little algorithmic solutions that ultimately will be less successful than the brute force approach...
I don't understand the point.
:)
Humans get tired. Humans eventually make mistakes.
Computers ALWAYS follow instructions flawlessly. If they make a "mistake" it's a logic error on the part of the programmer. The computer would make the same "mistake" in the first minute or in the tenth year.
Making a big event out of a human playing chess against a machine is just sensationalism. If you REALLY wanted to test your "chess algorithm" you would give the human UNLIMITED time to plan their next move, and would keep cameras and media away.
But I guess the point is the sensationalism, right?
Seriously. You back out of humans vs. computers by saying the that they are the same thing. If this is your belief, then the answer is trivial.
I have that issue with Go, I'm a 7-9kyu player using Yahoo, or Cgoban or other programs, but with a real Goban in front of me I'm a 4-6 kyu player.
Something about the visual texture of the Go game helps me "feel" the way the game is progressing.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
(1) The frrther the computer is from the end of the game, the poorer its evaluation.
(2) The more close a position is, the poorer its evaluation.
Whatever loss in opening book a master may have, it is far swamped by what the computer loses. It effectively pushes the computers worst phase of the game up through the opening.