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."
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
I always wonder how long it takes in any chess thread before someone who thinks they've discovered the lost city of gold pipes up about go. And the answers they get are always the same, it's a totally different problem. We haven't built a robot to play tennis either, tennis is simply a different problem with a much much larger data set, just like go. A chess game with a 19x19 board would send a computer into shock too.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
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
People learn faster than machines.
No, they just saw this stuff on TV. Once Fritz gains access to the Star Trek archives he won't again be so easily distracted and outplayed by Kasparov using his secret weapon: "how do you feel?".
Kasparov: pwned!
Programmer: No way! Look at my ping. It was lag!
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.
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.
I just got back from the 15th Mid-Atlantic GO championship about 30 minutes ago where we discussed this. (Images on my site). Apparently the largest GO board that's 'solved' is 5x5. One could imagine building a quantum computer that could solve a larger board using 3 state q-bits (q-trits?) -1 = black stone, 0 = empty, 1 = white stone. Then a simple 361 'q-trit' system could represent a 19x19 board. (And be in a superposition of all states at once). Just a thought, though the quantum computing guys I work with would probably have a fit about what I just said.
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~cornick/
given a finite amount of time the human brain can figure out how to solve any problem.
...
Okay, I give you 10 seconds to demonstrate the Fermat theorem : 1..2..3
Imho computers are 100 years too early to even compete with the human brain
[/me checks the date]
No, I knew I was right, it is 2003.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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
Kinda like how your average Slashdotter watching the crowd go wild over Barry Bonds breaking the home run record is secretly thinking, "Oh sure, but can he put together a Beowulf cluster of Linux boxes?"
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.
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
This gives a nice introduction to Go and AI and why it is so hard to play for a computer.
Does Fritz learn from today's defeat... or could Kasparov repeat today's win simply by repeating today's move sequence on Tuesday?
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."
We haven't built a robot to play tennis either, tennis is simply a different problem with a much much larger data set, just like go.
A simple wall-shaped opponent pressed right against the net, with a large enough surface area, will beat any opponent. Well, maybe with a hole in there for serving.
A chess game with a 19x19 board would send a computer into shock too.
Less so than Go, since with Go the number of possible moves at each junction in time is larger than in chess - Go on a chess-sized board still features a larger search space than chess. Just like 110 in binary is less than 110 in decimal.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Playing the game is most necessary - computer programs(GNUGo and Igowin are both worth checking out) can challenge any new player these days, but humans will usually be more helpful to learn from because they play less predictably and if they're polite will review the game with you afterwards to help point out mistakes.
If you can join a local club, do so. While you can get an online game almost any time of day, it's far better to play with a real board and stones and people you can see.
Once you have a few months of experience you should be able to understand what's going on in a lot of higher-level games. They are excellent to learn from.
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.
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.
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.
It's a sad world when one has an inferiority complex against a database.
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.
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.
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..."
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...
Sure, but:
The X3D technology fools the brain into seeing 3D. I wonder how much this 50% lack of visual stimuli changes the way the chessmaster's brain works here.
No effect whatsoever, because there is no "50% lack of visual stimuli". Anything that flickers fast enough is perceived by the retina itself as a solid unchanging image.
The "critical flicker fusion rate" that determines "what is fast enough" varies from about 40 frames per second to about 80 frames per second, depending on image brightness, ambient illumination, the particular individual viewing it, etc.
TV in the US, for instance, flickers at about 60 hertz, but in non-flourescent ambient illumination, most people don't notice. In Europe the rate is 50 hertz, and people frequently do notice. And some people get headaches from computer monitors that flicker even at 72 hertz, especially under flourescent lights.
I used to regularly get annoyed at PC monitors in conference rooms flickering at 60 hertz, when others didn't notice -- so I'd bring up display preferences and set it at the highest refresh rate. Until it occured to me that I was sabotaging people who needed to interface it to the overhead projector at 60 hertz. Oops! :-) But I digress.
Movies are displayed at 48 hertz (although only 24 unique frames per second; they are "double-shuttered" to double the frame rate). Cartoons sometimes have as few as 6 unique frames per second (although they are displayed at movie or tv flicker rates) because that's about the threshold for perceiving continuous motion. Lots of issues, lots of thresholds.
But even if the 3D viewing shows perceptible flicker, there isn't any issue of "50% lack of visual stimuli". Both eyes are constantly receiving information.
I could imagine that any number of things about this 3D gadget could distract a chess player -- but so does cigar smoke (a trick used to advantage in chess matches early in the 20th century).
Years ago I used to use similar 3D goggles to play first person shooters like Quake, and it was great. It helped my game. Quake isn't chess, but 3D goggles aren't rocket science.
You can assume that, if he agreed to use this 3D setup, he was confident it wouldn't throw off his game. He does care, after all.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
"The depressing thing about tennis is that no matter how much I play, I'll never be as good a a wall. I played a wall once. They're fucking relentless...." --Mitch Hedberg
/syle
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