Slashdot Mirror
Kasparov Wins Game 3 Against X3D Fritz
Vulcao writes "Garry Kasparov just brilliantly won game 3 in the Kasparov vs. X3D Fritz chess match, which pits man against machine. Kasparov created a positional advantage on the queen side with a very strong pawn structure to which Fritz didn't have an answer. The result is now 1.5 - 1.5, and the last game will be this Tuesday, Nov. 18."
Crazy.
I wonder how long the humans can keep up with the computers.
The ancient game of Go could be played in a virtual environment too. At 13h (nineteen) square, it would be a bit bigger. But there are only three states for each square--black, white, or empty. Go is mentioned in every slashdot article on chess, but that is only because it is in many ways more elegant than chess. And even with quantum computing, Go computers won't be beating humans anytime soon.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
People learn faster than machines.
Sorry Gary, my money's on the computer
...with people saying that if the computer wins over the human it means that "That's it, here we are, computers are more intelligent than man".
Computer chess games deal with statistics and historics of previous games to decide how they will move their next turn. Usually they analyze hundreds of thousand of differents moves, even dumb ones !
When a human player take a look at the chess board, he rejects the vast majority of the possible moves and concentrate only on very few of them.
I would call that efficiency and if computers where as efficient as human, they would win easily without requiring huge processing power.
Iraq: war to save the U
Subsequently, Kasparov created a positional advantage on the human side with
a very strong finger pointed at the reset button to which Fritz didn't have an answer.
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
Kasparov created a positional advantage on the queen side with a very strong pawn structure to which Fritz didn't have an answer.
...
Well, what can poor Fritz, a cold emotionless computer, do when a handsome russian stallion of a man puts his pawn on the queen's side? Of course he didn't have an answer
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
For those interested in AI game programming without the insane complexities of chess, Nine Men's Morris is fun. Also a frequently researched topic in AI.
Play here.
sig
It seems like the interface has been the major hang up for kasparov. Maybe he's finally got the hang of it.
Kasparov: pwned!
Programmer: No way! Look at my ping. It was lag!
How much more powerful is this computer vs the last one ? Is Kasparov changing his strategy versus the last time he played the computer ?
Thanks.
given a finite amount of time the human brain can figure out how to solve any problem. I'm sure in a couple of years no machine can beat Kaspharov. Imho computers are 100 years too early to even compete with the human brain
did you forget to take your meds?
Is there a place on the site that lets you step through the game move by move? I couldn't find it.
There is a lot of relief here to me, as a spectator. The first game had Garry as white with a strong opening and everything looked good, then due to some dubious moves, it was a drawn game.
:)
The second game on Thursday had Garry as black beat pretty much from the beginning. Garry fought back very well and might have drawn the game, but then foolishly blundered which cost him the game almost immediately. You could see the frustration level just go through the roof, as he's still trying to prove that he's better than the computer, but only to be beaten by the slow, steady computer approach.
But today, he's redeemed himeself. Although the match is now tied, he has shown that he can win against the computer. I feel better.
The last game will be difficult for Garry as black. But the fact that he won an game, and didn't draw them all has got to have him elated.
So, does anyone know when all this fancy AI will be backported into Battle Chess?
Rest in peace Malin "looxn" Kristiansen. We miss you...
if the computer ends up winning and skynet gets ahold of that technology we're all in BIG trouble
I play a little chess. When I was younger I had a 1600 rating. I wanted to play because I was humilated at getting beat by the chessmaster on Nintendo. So I practiced and finally became good enough to beat the computer (albiet only a Nintendo) What I learned then (and seems to be common knowledge among chess players) is that when playing a computer, you stand a much better chance if you keep all your pawns on the board and manouver your pieces behind them. Computers think about the game in a very different manner, and I think eight pawn chess highlights where their weakness lies. They do not have a plan. They do not start the game with a long term plan to the ending. I believe that in the past, Garry was a true sportsman and did not play eight pawn chess against the strongest computers. He played real chess. He played what he would play against another Grandmaster. I really think he could probably beat the computer almost all of the time by playing eight pawn chess.
For those who receive ESPN/ESPN2, the sports network has televised all three matches and will televise the fourth on Tuesday at 1:00pm. I've watched all three games on there, and it's actually very entertaining, if only for the humor of seeing history's greatest chess player in action and wearing those stupid X3D goggles. I just hope Garry can pull off Game 4 with a win.
porp
According to the X3D website's live commentary, 1.2 million people watched the match last Tuesday, double the regular viewership of the regular ESPN channel. Hopefully this bodes well for more televised chess in the future
I wrote an email to chessbase two months ago and actually got a response from Fred Friedel (the Chessbase president). I then replied to him about two classic articles I'd seen on chess as I was interested in seeing more of such in regard to the current match. They did some interesting statistical analysis (here's part five of a series, it links to the other parts) but, of course, I'm still hoping for more more more. Here's some of what I wrote in my email:
F 5-D9D7-1CF6-93F6809EC5880000
In replying to my original email you asked if I had any specific thing I miss. I can reply that over time I've seen two really good articles on computer chess. The first was the cover story from Scientific American in 1990:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005CC
It was about Kasparov vs. Deep Thought. The second was in 1997 from Byte Magazine:
http://www.byte.com/art/9707/sec6/art6.htm
The thing that stuck in my memory from the second article was this information:
"Hsu told BYTE that his team chose the RS/6000SP because it was the best available IBM system for the job, even though its P2SC processors don't have the best integer performance. Although the P2SC lags in raw integer horsepower, the RS/6000SP largely makes up for it by uniting 32 of the processors in a parallel system architecture with high-speed, low-latency connections."
I would be very interested to see the above sort of coverage of the current chess match. To put it in colloquial terms I'd like to see a big fat writeup of the workings of fritz, how it's design is broken down, how it makes tradeoffs between one kind of technique vs another, how it works with the intel architecture, how it uses null-move ordering, RAM caching, and how it fits into the history of human-chess matches.
Anyone has a PGN file of the game somewhere? I'd like to study it in Xboard, and flash is lacking here.
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
because they bring out so many people who bitterly complain and make excuses and want to challenge Fritz to a game of poker or something because it would give the human the advantage.
This is far from the end of our species, chill out. Even if we are worse at chess than the computers, it doesn't make the experience of being human meaningless. It doesn't mean we will be welcoming our new robot overlords any time soon.
Anyway, would it really be so bad, if AIs started getting better than humans at a lot of things? I think that in the end, we could take our greatest joy as a species in knowing that we created something better than ourselves.
Of course, that is an issue so seperated from computer chess, that many of you are probably complaining to yourselves.
That's how I feel when I read the excuse making and naysaying.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Does Fritz learn from today's defeat... or could Kasparov repeat today's win simply by repeating today's move sequence on Tuesday?
Fritz has grandmasters working for them. They're not stupid and neither are the programmers...
Kasparov tried playing "anti-computer" chess against Deep Blue and got his butt handed to him. After losing to Deep Blue Kasparov really, Really, REALLY wants to beat Fritz (after helping hype him as "even better than Deep Blue"). If it were as simple as you describe, he wouldn't be wasting any time doing it now.
Does Kasparov play human beings anymore? or is he too good for us?
To quote (from memory) the online commentator Mig Greengard:
"If X3D Fritz lacks a clear target it plays like a braindamaged lemur"
As Fritz moved its pieces back and forth throughout the game, Kasparov could make several free moves. That isn't brilliant, that's just making use of the other guys mistakes. Kasparov dominated the whole game, while Fritz had no clue at all what to do. According to one of its makers, X3D Fritz reached a new record of reading deeply (19 ply if I'm not mistaken) since the number of possible moves was so small in the cramped space they were building up their positions. This, however, didn't help a bit and I had a few giggles over bishops and knights moving away and then back again to the very same place they were coming from.
Only at the very end did Fritz realize it was losing, throughout the whole game it couldn't see what was glaringly obvious to the audience.
I've been told that this was proper anti-computer chess. The cramped position makes it tremendously difficult for a computer program to play properly while a human can easily see what's to be done.
All in all, it wasn't brilliant, Fritz just didn't have a clue
What am I discussing all this chess for? Let me get back to KGS...
"We live in our minds, and existance is the attempt to bring that life into physical reality" Ayn Rand
I played chess all the time with pals about 10 years ago. We were all at about the same level of bad. I thought I would prove my chess-skilz one day and played some guy at the local coffeeshop. After 3 moves, I was checkmated. My middle eastern opponent turned to my friend and said, "Your friend is stupid. I will not play him again.", swept all the pieces off the board, got up, shook his head and left.
That stung. So You Go Gary! I must live vicariously through you! Kick some ass! Then I must go back to OS X gnuChess which mocks me every time I play, "You are stupid. I will not play you again."
Man vs Calculator: Round 1!
The machine designed specifically for calculating 2+2 today declared victory over all humans, at being superior in all regards when that calculation is involved. Capable of outputting the answer (the integer number 4) a billion times a second, the computer was judged itself to be a billion times better than humans at solving that problem - the humans taking at least a second to write or say the answer.
Seriously though, human minds have built a tool for solving chess puzzles, a series of algorithms and search spaces. To say that the "computer is superior to the human mind" is like saying that a rock is superior to human hands because it's better at killing lizards - the conclusion doesn't make much sense outside of the very narrow problem space.
In game two, Kasparov played the Berlin defence, which is a more closed game than the traditionally sharp Sicilian that Kasparov usually employs. It is well known that the sheer number crunching ability of the computer puts it significantly above the very best human tacticians. So yes, I think Kasparov has changed his strategy somewhat.
The telecasts have begun on ESPN2 at the start of play, but so far all of them have been kicked over to sister network ESPNews because they ran longer than their allotted airtime. Today's game, however, got bumped off of ESPNews to make room for NFL highlights today, so the chess coverage was regulated to two-minute live updates during the football coverage. Why did ESPN allow a match to be scheduled for today knowing that they would have run out of networks on which to put the full telecast unless an early blunder would be made?
It's fully expected that Tuesday's match will also spill into ESPNews territory as well, but at least they should be able to air the conclusion live since it will be weekday with no major sports events scheduled for the daytime.
That game was a beautiful demonstration of anti-computer chess strategy. Kasparov pushed his pawns early to close the game, gain a space advantage, enhance the power of his knights, and play long term, while the computer thrashed around without the ability to detect these abstract strategic moves AKA a _plan_.
See here for more info.
...or does that not get any press?
I play chess...since 3rd grade but I don't follow tournament play. Does he get more money to play the computers?
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Thank you for that explanation. Very good link.
1.Computer beats human at chess.
2.Human proceeds to reach for nearest rock and smash the computer to smitherines.
3. Human wins next match since the computer can no longer play!
**DISCLAIMER**Violence against living beings is whacked, but i've been known to slap my computer around on occasions.
Obviously these kind of matches are very interesting for chess players. But I wonder if there is any other significance, in theoretic science or in the computer science depts.
In other words, why should we care who wins? I don't want to troll, but the machine vs human chess player story is getting a bit stale. If the computer wins, that will mean, what? It's such a specialized field that you can hardly call it a milestone in computer science.
Al Gore: You already know Stephen Hawking. Also with us is Nichelle Nichols a.k.a. Commander Uhura.
Nichols: Incoming transmission from MCI one rate department. It sounds like a limited time offer.
Gore: Tell them I'm in the tub! To my left you'll recognise Gary Gygax, inventor of dungeons and dragons.
Gygax: Greetings! It's a...[rolls dice.]...pleasure to meet you!
Gore: And our summer intern, Deep Blue. The world's foremost chess playing computer.
Deep Blue: Bishop to knight 4.
Gore: Not all missions can be solved with chess, Deep Blue. Someday you'll understand that.
In other news, chess master Garry Kasparov was arrested under the DMCA for defeating the Fritz mechanism, the codename for the copy-protection technology in TCPA hardware. Full story at eleven.
Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
http://www.tsanewsblog.com
A lot of people are trying to make of this a kind of John Henry against the steam drill contest. Here is my take on it.
Some while ago someone told me that computer programmers "break things", and I never quite understood what they meant. Some while later, a "competitor" was demoing a Windows version of a type of program for which I had put a great deal of effort into a DOS version. The program had a lot of graphical and interactive displays of scientific plots and other data, and I knew enough about Windows and all the stuff you had to do (WM_SIZE, WM_PAINT) to make it look right, and I suspected my acquaintence was "first to market" by taking a lot of short cuts on his UI. He let all the scientists in the room play with his program, but he was very reluctant to let me near the thing -- because the first thing I was going to do was try and break it to find out how much work he had yet to do.
The only way Kasparov is going to beat that chess program is if he uncovers some limitation or shortcoming -- in other words to break it, and once broken I bet he could beat the thing at will. Last time around the cheat was a team of programmers hanging around trying to patch the program as soon as Kasparov latched on to such a weakness.
The chess program will have reached true AI (in a limited problem set) once Kasparov is able to find a weakness, beat if for several games straight and for the program to somehow learn from what is going on and "close the hole", and if the program can withstand other such attacks from other chess grand masters and likewise "close the hole" without going unstable (one of the problems with learning algorithms is that can overadapt and go into limit cycles). That would have far reaching implications in terms of computer security, spam prevention, 24-7 uptime, and automated bug correction -- a program capable of fixing itself would be an advance indeed.
Seriously, does anyone even CARE about this anymore? What I'D like to see is a human beat him.
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
They only give computers instructions. Our best fighter aircraft, the F-16 and F-22 could not fly at all under direct human control. The stick, rudder and throttle only give inputs to computers which do everything in a way that prevents the airplane from tumbling out of control. Without the computers, no human could make inputs fast enough to keep the airplanes from crashing. Fly-by-wire systems are also in place on the 747-400, 777 and some Airbus planes too.
I find this absolutely incredible. Here we have a machine with software that can do nothing but play chess, which checks millions of positions a second every second of the game trying to find the best possible game, and on the other side is a human being, designed to go find food and survive and so on. Humans were NOT created to strategically shove pieces around a board.
And yet, he can still win, and he probably didn't do too well the last two games only because he was thinking about cutting his fingernails or something.
GK was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. While Azerbaijan was once a member state of the Soviet Union, this does not make him Russian.
I am waiting for the first declaration from him declaring himself "The One" and taking the nickname Neo.
The scary part will be when he starts calling the computer, Agent Smith.
Funniest comment posted yet on this heap
And in other news, I set up a positional advantage in a hallway in NetHack to produce a conga line of death.
____ _______
Duty now for the future!
1. e4 e5
2. Bc4 Bc5
3. ???
4. Qxf7 checkmate!
----
http://www.hellection.com
Something I've wondered is--when the computer goes first, how does it decide to open? Is it random based on its analysis of the opponent or what?
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Its ridiculous to say oooh the computer has beaten the human. Whats actually happening is that a human unassisted is being beaten by a team of humans using a tool (the computer). Computers are just tools. What this means is that us dumb humans have figured out a way to model what this really smart (well good at chess at least) human is doing. To me its about as big a deal as saying ooh the worlds strongest man just got beaten by a guy with a forklift truck.
a computer is only as good as its creator.
if the programmer didnt think of a move kasporov
would think of, the computer will be like *bzzzt* error. and loop until it makes an illogical move out of confusion, much like a person does when in doubt.
The parent hit the nail on the head. Computers require a different strategy than human players. For instance, there was one particular move in this game that illustrates this, 18. Rb2, that is a loss of tempo against a human opponent. However, against Fritz it was a very smart move. The computer should have moved the piece on f6 then pushed its f pawn to f5 then f4, attacking Kasparov's f pawn. Moving Rb2 however had the effect of making black work a little harder to attack, apparently pushing the number of moves it needed to consider to find the advantage beyond where it was searching. Against a human player it would have had little or no effect (all the commentators were saying how Fritz was ignoring the opportunity with the f pawn), but against Fritz it made Kasparov's game much much easier.
If Kasparov played his next game identically, would the computer come to the same decisions as before, securing him another win?
So the computer is a Deterministic Finite Automata unless there are some random seeds involved. If there are random seeds involved, it would be kinda weird since the algorithms are themselves deterministic. Even with learning algorithms, this is just one game out of who knows how many thousands it's played.
So barring a deep blue type reprogramming, couldn't Kasp. go download his move list and play the same winning game again?
The game was interesting. It resembled a classic game from the thirties with either Saemisch or Maroczy as white. It underlines the strengths of the human mind versus computers.
The annotators of the first game pointed out over and over again, that some of each player's decisions were based on the computer's looking over a few million positions, and 'knowing' that it was safe to play the kind of moves that a human's fears and instincts would have made it very uncomfortable for a human to have played (e.g., the capture of the bishop by the king in the drawn game). Games like the first two show the greatest strengths of computers: superhuman ability in positions involving the calculation of tactical complications.
The current game by contrast grave rise to a position that is possibly the greatest illustration of a human's real strengths: the ability to create closed positions where tactical calculations of severely reduced utility; creating a position where experience and 'instinct' far outweigh calculation.
In the latest game, the computer's playing, 5...a6 created a 'hole,' a 'positional weakness,' and the rest of the game was a matter of exploiting its consequences while simultaneously giving the computer no chance to balance the game neither by winning back material, nor by a compensatory attack against white's position.
To put it another way, the nature of the position allowed white to create and exploit a position where the computer's ability to look at millions of positions per second was essentially useless.
It was clever and precise play on Kasparov's part.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Not unless game #4 is a draw.
Nine Men's Morris has been solved by Ralph Gasser in 1996 (Draw).
So has Qubic (4x4x4 Tic-Tac-Toe) by Patashnik O in 1980. (First Player Win)
Connect Four by James Allen in September 1998. (First Player Win)
Let's see John W. Romein and Henri E. Bal from that wonderful games research group in U of Alberta solved Awari in 2002. (Draw)
Read Victor Allis' PhD thesis for a good overview on finding game theoretic results of games. He invented the proof-number search technique that he used to (re)solve Qubic and Connect-Four. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~victor/thesis.html
Nine Men's Morris is not researched actively anymore, but Ralph Gasser's paper is often cited in any paper that deals with artificial intelligence in games.
Of course, even though the game might already be solved, that does not mean that it is not fun to play...
"When a human player take a look at the chess board, he rejects the vast majority of the possible moves and concentrate only on very few of them."
Which is exactly what Fritz does. Blue was the one that would cover every single possible move. Hence, it had to have more computing power to cover more moves.
Fritz however, only is interested in the interesting moves. Fritz does EXACTLY what you are talking about.
Jason Lotito
The same program drew with Kramnik last year. It was quite a surprise as we would have expected Deep Fritz to trounce kramnik by now. But, the reason why it did not is discussed here by Ray kurzweil.
Interestingly, the current game is using 4 processors against 8 used in kramnik game.
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
Well it actually takes 4 moves, but black only gets to make 3 before losing...I'm guessing the game went something like this:
For reference - white in lowercase, forgive me if I've got the ASCII notation incorrect - I always use a board.White: Standard Opening: King's Pawn(E7) to E5
Black: Standard Response: King's Pawn(E2) to E4
White: Right Bishop(F8) to (B5) (which covers F2)
Black: hum..still just setting up.. ie. brings out a Knight
White: Queen to F6 (attack on F2)
Black: Fails to cover or block F2
White: Queen to F2 (checkmate)
This opening is used on new players by those that want to totally demoralise them... like many magic tricks, it only works once and sweeping all the piece off the board just stopped you from analysing it so you could work out what happened.
The secret is in the weakness of position F2 - in the starting setup only the king can defend this position, so if you can get two points of attack on it, its toast and the king is still locked in and unable to run.
Chess programs never use this attack as it is so simple to defend against once you're aware of it, one of the easiest of which is just to step forward your pawn at F2 by 1.
If you use this against someone to show off, be nice and explain how you did it afterwards.
If you want to continue showing off - in the next game instead of bring your queen out for the instant kill, you can walk up your right knight to attack F2 (don't forget to step forward your queen's pawn, so your left bishop can protect the knight as it advances - to the beginner it looks like you're just trying to defend your opening pawn).
If they've learnt from the previous encounter they'll block you off, if not you can do a really nasty queen/rook(castle) fork which gives you nice early piece advantage and demoralises your oppenent. You can then just trade pieces off until the end game and use your extra piece to win (or protect your pawns so they can run up and become queens for demoralising effect).
This game will also show you how good your oppenent actually is, allowing you to masterfully retire undefeated by refusing all futher games with them by telling them that the are not yet l33t enough to challenge you.
And I can't even beat the computer at GNU Chess :(
My question is, if you're Gary Kasparov, what's the point anymore? You will beat all human players, hands down, so you're stuck playing machines, which is incredibly antisocial. It would seem that it's time to hang up your chess hat and move on.
Although... he probably gets paid shitloads of money, so nevermind.
Try looking at the sources of gnugo. ;)
Do you try to run past a guy that's much faster than you? Do you try a head duel where the other guy is half a meter taller than you? Do you dribble a guy who you know would tackle you like a n00b? Do you try to tackle a guy who could outdribble the brazilian national team in a phone booth? No.
Picking a strategy for which the opponent has no good answer is part of the game. Chess has an open strategy. Personally I prefer to create lots of bindings to confuse the opponent. Am I wrong, simply because the opponent doesn't manage to keep track of them all? Not at all.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Humans have huge processing power, just not in the same sense as computers do. You say the human player rejects the vast majority of possible moves and concetrates on only a few of them. But how does he decide which ones to concentrate on? Through some sort of processing--whether it be excellent pattern-recognition, or some sort of explicit processing going on we don't yet understand. There's a lot of neuron-firing going on during even simple thought, and that's all processing power of one sort or another.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Are you trying out an application of your .sig here?
Because (1) the axiom of choice only applies to infinite sets, whereas the number of possible games of GO is huge, but not infinite, and (2) The axiom of choice is not an open question that may "happen" to be true or not; it has been proven to be independent of the other typically used axioms. You can declare it to be either true or false, and either way, develop an interesting branch of math that depends on your choice -- as many mathematicians have done.
In other words, your .sig philosophy of "if you can't dazzle
'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS"
isn't cutting it this time around. :-)
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
...then no human would be able to compare to even a modest computer. The fact is that chess is more about recognizing patterns and situations, which is much more difficult than memorizing the same. This is why a human can beat a computer, even though the human considers 3 moves per turn and the computer an enormous number.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
The position after 29. a6 was indicative of how paranoid Kasparov was about the computer's tactical capabilities. In addition to the pawn blockade stretching diagonally from f2 to b6, he had marched his king all the way from e1 to b2 and protected it behind a wall of pieces. The king's bunker looked like this:
BN N
K R Q
As chess positions go, that one cracked me up.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
Sorry for the bad links.
Here is the Scientific American article.
Here again is the Byte Magazine article.
Here are some excerpts from the first article that talk about how to develop the algorithm:
We also began to consider ways of tuning the evaluation function's 120 or so parameters, specified in software. Traditionally, programmers had hand-tuned the weights that programs assigned to material--pawns and pieces-- and to positional considerations. We believe ours is the only major program to tune its own weights automatically.
We acquired 900 sample master games and arbitrarily defined the optimum weights as those that produce the best match between the moves the machine judges to be best and those that the masters actually played. The software part of the evaluation function was completely rewritten by Campbell and Nowatzyk to reflect this strategy. Instead of just assigning a final numerical value to each position, the evaluation function--in its tuning mode--returns an equation containing a string of linear terms. In other words, it produces a vector.
Two tuning mechanisms were used. The first, which is called hill climbing, simply sets a given evaluation parameter at an arbitrary value and then performs, say, a five- or six-ply search on every position in the game data base to find the moves that the machine would play. It then adjusts the parameter and recalculates. If the number of matches between the computer's choices and the grandmaster's choice should increase, then the parameter is adjusted again in the same direction. The process continues until all the parameters have reached their highest level of performance. It would take years to optimize all the parameters by this method, however, and so we used it only in a few diffcult cases.
The second tuning mechanism, proposed and implemented by Nowatzyk, was much quicker. It evolved from the simple notion of finding the best fit between the function of the machine's evaluation of positions and their presumed true values. The best fit provides the lowest average squared value of the error between the model and the true value. True values can be approximated, for these purposes, by the results returned from deep searches (if a known concept is being fine-tuned) or by comparing machine decisions with those of first-rate human players.
On one hand, a victory for the computer means a victory for everything we've been working at for a long time. It means that computers are getting smarter, and smarter, and smarter.
Call me a hypocrite, call me sentimental, but I desperately want Kasparov to win. I want us to still be better than computers at this game. It's highly mathematical, but there's always been a level of flare, panache, and style to the game. Even though 'Knight to King 4' may not sound particularly interesting, it could have been something intrinsically bold and audacious when done by a human player. When the same move is made by a computer it becomes purely calculated.
I want Kasparov to win because I feel like it'd be a blow to the game to let an algorithm (albeit a brilliant one with an unbelievable amount of brute force behind it) beat something feeling.
while (!sleep){
sheep++;
}
He also brilliantly lost game 2 by not noticing he had a pinned pawn. Gary has a history of making mistakes against computer opponents. Vladimir Kramnik didn't exactly do that well either. Vishwanathan Anand does better against machines.
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
ESPN2 had the match sandwiched between the double-dutch jump rope championship and women's college basketball.
How rude.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
sorry.
I've been itching to say that. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then never mind.
"I win again, you fuck!"
-- f00!
A human can pick up another game and learn it, and get better at it. He/she can notice shortcuts / regularities in the way the game works that reduces the amount of thinking s/he has to do, build a higher level, meaningful way of looking at the game. You can drop a human into any novel situation and they'll similarly figure out the rules, and shortcuts.
We handle it completely differently - we rely on this ability, and chess programs look ahead some 15 or more moves, where humans supposedly top out at about 6.
Now, if you think of Kasparov making a close game with a specially written, highly-refined program with his general purpose brain, look at it as the measure of what it takes to beat our brains! 15-20 move lookahead! It validates the brains' elegant and powerful design.
Someday we'll all be negroes
I've posted copies of all the games played so far they are available in pgn, html, and you can play through them on a java viewer. Here is the link
Intelligence is what computers can't do (yet).
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
1) As has already been stated - Kaspy is black on Tuesday.
2) Almost all chess programs have book learning, meaning that it keeps statistics over how well it has done in it's different book lines ("book" meaning something like predecided moves in the opening, that it does not have to think about). It will play lines with poor statistics less frequently.
3) Which brings us to the fact that a computer randomly picks from a choice of a couple of moves on every move for the first eight moves or so. So getting into the same line is very hard anyway.
4) In this particular case, I think that the Fritz team is allowed to make changes to its opening book between games, just to fine-tune it to be anti-Kasparov. So they could simply stop Fritz from playing the same thing again. Furthermore, I think they are even allowed to make changes to the positional parameters of Fritz between games, to make it evaluate the position differently.
5) Finally, a computer works on the position when it is your move as well (a feature called "pondering"), so in order to be certain that it will make exactly the same move in the same position, you have to make _your_ moves in exactly the same amount of time as the first time you played the game.
In short - no way...
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
Four games is not enough to statistically show who is better, especially if they are tied after three games.
I think Kasparov still knows a lot of tricks but will not reveal many of them even if it means losing a match of just 4 games. He would know after just a game or two who is really stronger, and if the machine is limited, he woould't care to play 100% in case the next upgrade learns too much.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
Was watching ESPN2's coverage of the game yesterday, and they showed an outtake of Kasparov, before the match, throwing a hissy-fit over the fact that the board was oriented the wrong way. It took like 4 or 5 people to calm him down.
Besides hating Kasparov for being a pissy little bitch, and being a life-long supporter of IBM, the phrase "THE AUTOMATON CANNOT BE DEFEATED" has a certain, beautiful ring to it.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
(Have a look at the "Miss New York City" pageant winner lingering around the set pimping X3D's ShittyGoggles 2000. If thats the best you New York twits have to offer, you might want to continue looking around in caves for undiscovered sasquatches. That woman has about as much sex appeal as a rusty fire hydrant overgrown with weeds.)
Bowie J. Poag
For example, to avoid closed positions.
And to make assumptions about not moving pawns on the kings side.
Take that, Sky-Net ! :)
____
nico
Nico-Live
Garry Kasparov just brilliantly won game 3
Did you even watch the game? Kasparov just exploited a bug in Fritz' evaluation engine. I wouldn't call that a brilliant win. (He'd make a good hacker though.)
I HATE the "phunney"-congratulation posts patting each other's backs. It's a circle-jerk, and you know it.
Does this mean Gary could be The One? (spoiler) I expect him to lay down and feed himself to X3D to save us all.
Does Kasparov play human beings anymore? or is he too good for us?
Ponomariov held out for more money (non-existant) in a sheduled match with Kasparov that would have led to a championship match between either Kramnik or Leko. Neither match ever happened so Kasparov headed back to New York for another payday with Fritz. The problem is not Kasparov playing other humans but other humans having the guts to play Kasparov. Kramnik has not defended his title in 3 years. The FIDE stripped Fischer's title after that long.
an ill wind that blows no good
Maybe someone has asked this before... but why does everybody wear dark sunglasses like in the matrix? Are they trying to look cool or what?
Meh.
barring an opening book which in my opinion is not an example of chess playing at all
Bi()hazard seems to think that pattern matching is how experienced humans play chess. An opening book is just how a computer does pattern matching in the beginning of a chess game.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Great. It's no longer "man vs machine" playing chess... If you ask me, it's more one man trying to find bugs in the machine's system. Or rather, what moves have not been preprogrammed properly.
I bet the nintendo would beat the crap out of the rest. It wouldn't prune it's search tree so much and kick their butts like a computer tends to kick the butt of someone human who prunes too much. NINTENDO IS KING.
Why some folks get nervous when a computer beats a human at chess is beyond me. Need I remind everyone that Fritz was designed and built by humans, programmed by humans playing a game invented by humans. Sounds to me like it this is more a Man (Kaspov) vs Men (team who designed, researched and programmed Fritz). I would guess that no one on the Fritz team could beat Kaspov one on one in Chess, so they formed a team and built a machine to do it. The computer has nothing that I would call intelligence, its just a fancy Turing Machine.
Damn, dude.
I tried those, and it threw off my depth perception. It's probably because I'm an elitist tribes-playing fucker, but all 3d glasses I've tried so far work well for corridor-based games and very poorly for games like Tribes, where your position and perspective change so rapidly.
Just a publicity stunt and easy money for Kasparov.
a t=Fritz+ Programs
I bet Kasparov plays with Fritz regularly (has his own copy). And didn't he recently play Deep Fritz already?
Buy Deep Fritz:
http://www.chessbase.com/shop/index.asp?c
Add some serious hardware. Kasparov can afford serious hardware.
I've only played against Fritz, not studied it, but I've always wondered how the same moves can beat a program one day and lose to it the next.
I mean, presumably if K. used the same opening in his next match, Fritz would respond differently, right? (otherwise once you've beaten a program you could always beat it.) What changes between the two matches? Does Fritz recall its earlier losses and try to avoid similar traps? Is there some amount of randmoness in the early move selections? Is it just a question of which positions it has time to analyze?
All's true that is mistrusted
The games seem to be sponsored by a company to promote it's proprietary 3D graphics technology. (Please do not confuse this company named "X3D" with the candidate ISO standard X3D, which is a new, expanded version of VRML).
I looked around the site, but couldn't find a single screenshot of the 3D graphics. All of the images are standard 2D chessboard diagrams, even the playback applet.
The best I could find was a monitor on the edge of a photo of Miss NYC in stereo glasses. Seemed like a fairly good looking chess set.... but it would be nice to see some animated playback, in the correct time! I thought "X3D" was trying to promote it's technology, but I can't see any of it.
Anyone catch it on ESPN2? Did they show the gfx there at all?
reedVOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org
Well, it used to be, back before people really thought about how to build a chess program.
I remember playing against early computer chess programs. Even at an early age, I could quite often outthink them, simply because of their lack of power. A master wouldn't even be amused pounding it into the ground. It wasn't the program that was at fault, it was that it was running on a CPU of the 80s, without the CPU power nor the memory to store a sufficently large game tree.
However, I was never in doubt that if the machine had been blazingly fast, with lots of memory, it'd beat me hands down. Chess is after all a fairly simple game, there is no hidden information, no room for bluffs, statistical probabilities etc. Everything can be calculated in advance to an arbitrary depth.
Chess could theoretically be solved - either as a win for white, draw, or even win for black. From what I've gathered, so could Go (I don't know if draws are possible there?) Does that require intelligence? No. Just near-infinite brute force.
Most signs of intelligence can be mimiced by sufficent brute force. With enough samples from the solution set, picking the best one is "sufficient". Say e.g. a computer that wants to drive a car. The direction [0...360> degrees is an infinite set. If the computer calculates what happens every 10 degrees, it'd miss out on quite a bit. If it calculated what happens every 0,001 degrees, it'd do fine.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Well, it is funny how you can criticize something you do not know much about. In my book beating the most advanced chess computer means brilliant. It is as brilliant as the computer program taking advantage of the "human" way of playing chess, which is prone to overlooks, while the computer is very methodical. I beat you are not as "brilliant" as Kasparov to beat the computer, so what give you the right to decide what is brilliant or not? Of curse, you can express your opinion, but it is just that. And it is my opinion that you should probably stick with KGS...
As an oper on squeaknet, I would just like to state that anyone who enters our community and causes trouble (trolling, harassment, etc) will be k-lined and banned at the IP level from our network. Also, the offenders ISP abuse department will be notified.
I bet I could beat that chess computer at Madden! Ever since that first Sega game I could always kill the computer, even with the worst team!!!
What keeps Kasparov from playing the exact same game again now that he has found a series of moves the program cannot beat?
Does it adapt in some way? Are some real programmers in there overnight tweaking things to prevent that?
right
I didn't have flash on the machine, and the PGN was very helpful, thanks!
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
Got a proof that Slashdot won't accept? Format it in LaTeX, post it on geoshitties, and link to it.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Not unless the human mind is capable of running Exponential algorithms in linear time, which it is not.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.