Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kasparov OpEd On His Latest Match

Posted by timothy on from the muse-against-the-machine dept.

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.)"

25 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Kasparov Biography by syr · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here is a biography of everyone's favorite chess savior protecting humanity against the robotic horde. Included is a list of matches and results throughout the years.

    GameTab - Game Reviews Database

    1. Re:Kasparov Biography by damiam · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Kasparov saw him enter the room in his (Fischer's) cotton shorts and shirt and wide brimmed straw hat and decided to offer a game and his hand for a shake. Fischer just looked at him, looked at his hand and walked on by to take in a game with his old buddy Spassky

      Maybe I'm misreading what you said, but that sounds like Fischer was the arrogant one, and Kasparov was just being polite.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    2. Re:Kasparov Biography by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Bobby Fischer praised the 9/11 attacks over the radio. He can go to hell and burn for all I care.
      You mindless retard [ishipress.com]

      "Bobby expresses extreme views, such as when he says that white Americans should go back to Europe and Black Americans should go back to Africa and give America back to the Indians. While this is a silly idea, once again there are many who agree with it.... Also, the attack on the Pentagon, which Bobby did know about, was not by definition a terrorist act. Under any reasonable definition of "terrorism", the Pentagon is a legitimate military target.

      Nice reference, I had no idea Fisher was such a blithering idiot. Apparently he feels the terrorists were perfectly within their rights to drive an airliner full of innocent civilians into the Pentagon. I think I liked him better as an long-forgotten recluse.
    3. Re:Kasparov Biography by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Terrorism is attacking civilian targets for the fear factor. The Pentagon is the fucking head of the military - hardly a civlian target by any stretch of the imagination. Does pointing this out mean I agree with the 9/11 attackers? Of course not. TO assume so one would have to be, what were the words you used - oh yes, "a blithering idiot".

      This is just like the flak Bill Maher got over pointing out that "cowardly" is the wrong word to use to describe a group that willingly died to carry out an attack of some sort - EVEN IF that attack is a terrorist one. The hijackers were guilty of a great many evils, but cowardice wasn't one of them. Just the opposite, actually.

      People think that any sort of criticism of the press coverage of an event equates to support of the perpetrators of that teven, because people are idiots.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  2. The main difference... by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 5, Funny



    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

    1. Re:The main difference... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only was the lastest match a tie, Kasparov actually made a stupid (for him) mistake in one of the earlier games which he might've won. The human element, it'll getcha every time. If Kasparov could always play at his best like Deep Junior can, then he could quite likely have beaten it this time around, too. Still, Deep Junior was an impressive, sexy bitch, as Kasparov says in this article. If _Kasparov_ is impressed, you should be, too!

  3. Aritificial Intelligence by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    I guess the real question has more to do with .. where does one go after they realise that chess is only a little game?

    1. Re:Aritificial Intelligence by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point being that chess is a, theoretically, *solvable* game. The precise solution isn't known, although we have a good deal of empirical data regarding possible solutions. (Although white to win has been proven)

      The chess computers rely on this empirical data, not on thinking. They *compute.* Big deal.

      To really demonstrate a machine that has something of the sort that could be truely called AI it will have to compete with a human player on at least a near even level at a complex and *unsolvable* game.

      Chess is the beginners level of game playing computers, and they're just about "getting there." Go is the Holy Grail, and they ain't even close. To date no one has made a Go playing program that can reasonably hold it's own against even a relative novice.

      KFG

    2. Re:Aritificial Intelligence by tpengster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point being that chess is a, theoretically, *solvable* game.

      Actually, that is beside the point. The state space of chess has some 10^120 states, larger than the number of particles in the universe. For practical purposes chess is unsolvable.

      The precise solution isn't known, although we have a good deal of empirical data regarding possible solutions. (Although white to win has been proven)

      Um.. no, white has not been proven to win. If I'm wrong, Why don't you show us the solution?

      The chess computers rely on this empirical data, not on thinking. They *compute.* Big deal.

      OK, those are two different things. If they relied on empirical data, that means that they would simply be looking up moves in a table. They're not (until the very endgame). They're looking ahead and then measuring positional and material differences. Quite a difference. And for that matter, the human brain, by the strong AI theory, is just a computer. So Kasparov is "just" computing when he plays a move. He just happens to have a massively parallel computer with billions and billions of neurons making computations simultaneously. "Big deal" indeed

      Go is the Holy Grail, and they ain't even close. To date no one has made a Go playing program that can reasonably hold it's own against even a relative novice.

      Once computers win Go, people will complain that they are "just" doing pattern matching, and so forth. The truth is that critics like you will never be satisfied with the state of AI because once a problem is solved, it will also be demystified. The fact that programs would approach a problem differently from humans is to be expected. These are chess programs. Not brain emulators.
  4. Re:so ... by 1984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

  5. I remain unimpressed by isoteareth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:I remain unimpressed by Nidoizo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?


      Don't take it personal, but your comment shows a lot of ignorance about chess AI. There's too much possible moves per turn in chess and I don't know of a chess program that calculates them all. Usually a program will calculate, let's say, around 10 moves. The job is there: evaluate the 10 best moves. Remember than even doing that, you still won't calculate very further. Suppose 10 moves per turn, one for black, one for white, it makes 100 moves per turn for both players. For only 7 complete turns you have to calculate 100,000,000,000,000 moves. It means your algorithm to evaluate positions needs to be very good, since, for example for a sacrifice, you only see calculable benefits after many more turns, sometime only in final.

      Like Kasparov, I very impressed to see a machine making an intelligent sacrifice; this is usually how you trap a computer. There's no doubt to me that Kasparov is still superior to any machine, but when machines begin to show some interesting moves, they begin to teach something. I'm a chess player and I understand chess enough to consider it an art. I can see emotions or genius in a game the same way some see it in painting. A big part of music is mathematical and if we're wise enough to build programs that create innovative chess games, maybe we can build some that create good melodies, who knows. I understand it may sound wierd for non-chess players to compare chess with an art, but creating a melody is also "a very limited, structured problem" and no one doubt it's an art. The main difference is that chess has a clear and easy to measure result. I don't think is "the holy grail sense of AI", but it is an important milestone in AI, no doubt for me.

      Regards,

      Nicolas Fleury
  6. The New Challenge by pjdoland · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  7. View the games with Javascript by product+byproduct · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  8. Take that IBM by njord · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  9. Shay Bushinsky by jbs666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Chessbase has an interesting interview with Shay Bushinsky, one of the programmers of Junior.

    --
    I'm not a nerd, nerds are smart!
  10. Re:There are 3 stages of a chess game... by phantumstranger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That is unless the true line goes so deep into the middle that it really creates no middle at all.

    For instance, there are more lines for 1. e4 than any other and some of those lines, if played right, can go 40 moves and more. At that point the opening overlaps the middle and the only way to be win by suprise (read creativity) is to find a new line. But in creating the new line - which can amount to one different move throughout the sequence that creates new possibilities, or lines - you are, as a byproduct, creating a new opening.

    So I want to offer this - The game of Chess is where humans will always have the advantage. But machines can help us by figuring out which lines are well thought out and which ones have flaws. The counter to that is that we are the only ones that can think out the lines in the first place!

    --
    "From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
  11. Re:an assumption by Jester99 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You assume that there is such a thing as an "unsolvable" game. This is not, as far as I know, established. This is not, as far as I know, established.

    Sure it has. I'll give you an unsolvable game right now.

    The source code to an entire program is written out by a game master. Two copies of the source are printed out. Two players are then each given an identical copy of the source, and a set of arguments that would be passed to the source were it compiled & executed. The goal is to determine if the program will exit correctly, or if it will halt in the middle. The first player to show either a) where it will halt or b) that it won't halt, wins.

    This is a game version of the halting problem. It's been mathematically proven intractable; that is, there's no deterministic (e.g., algorithmic or procedural) method of doing this. You cannot write a computer program that will execute a set series of steps every time and determine what's the case here.

    Is this game fun? Probably not. :) But that doesn't take away from the fact that an intelligent human could look at a source printout and figure out if it halted or not, but no general algorithm can be deduced that would do so. Thus, for a computer to win at this game, it would actually have to show intelligence, and not raw computational skill.

  12. Big deal, I've played against Deep Blue as well by sailesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Big deal, I've played against Deep Blue as well by Decimal · · Score: 4, Funny

      I still hope and believe that there was nothing inappropriate.

      Indeed there was. Why do you think IBM was in such a big hurry to dismantle Deep Blue? There's still a coverup to this day -- turns out that huge "Deep Blue" box was hollow -- Kramnik was hiding inside of it the whole time.

      --

      Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
  13. /. interview by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  14. Re:an assumption by gwernol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this game fun? Probably not. :) But that doesn't take away from the fact that an intelligent human could look at a source printout and figure out if it halted or not, but no general algorithm can be deduced that would do so. Thus, for a computer to win at this game, it would actually have to show intelligence, and not raw computational skill.

    I was with you right up to the end. However it is most certainly not shown that a human can solve the halting problem. It is proven that (in the general case) no algorithm can say whether a program halts. The only way a human can prove whether an algorithm halts is by using mathematical formalisms that are also limited.

    What people can often do is make an "intelligent" guess about whether a program halts. In fact computers can do this too: you can provide a machine with a set of heuristics (rules of thumb) that it can use to estimate the likelihood that a program will halt. That program could do better than random, just as a human could. But that is not the same as proving the program does or does not halt.

    I have never seen any evidence to suggest that humans can solve the halting problem for the class of unsolvable programs.

    Nevertheless you are right that there are unsolvable games. In fact there are an infinite number of them.

    --
    Sailing over the event horizon
  15. Really? They had to dismantle Deep Blue... by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...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
  16. Re:an assumption by egomaniac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But that doesn't take away from the fact that an intelligent human could look at a source printout and figure out if it halted or not, but no general algorithm can be deduced that would do so.

    Complete, utter, and unmitigated bullshit.

    If it can't be solved algorithmically, humans can't solve it either. Even if a human came up with the right solution, in the general case, you would never be able to prove it!

    Simple example: I write a program which "solves" chess. In other words, it loops through every possible game configuration and determines whether, say, white can always force a win. If so, it halts. Otherwise, it just drops into an infinite loop. Now, naturally, this game would take longer than the universe's lifespan to run, but that's not the point. The point is that determining whether or not this program halts is equivalent to solving the problem in the first place! To know whether or not it halts, you have to know whether or not white can always force a win. The halting problem is equally unsolvable for both man and machine. We both use algorithms, even if we don't understand our own algorithms. The fact that we do use algorithms means that we're just as subject to the rules of what is and is not computable.

    Put in other terms, a computer simulating a human brain would be able to solve the exact same problems as a human, and in the same ways. If a human can solve a problem (and prove it, not just make an intelligent guess), then it's by definition computable. The only counter to that is to assume that it is impossible to build a computer that simulates a human brain, but you're on shaky ground making such a claim.

    --
    ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  17. Fischer Random Chess by Jayson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.