Slashdot Mirror
Kasparov Draws Game 4 and Match Against X3D Fritz
jaydee77ca writes "Garry Kasparov survived opening danger and played very precise, technical chess to draw Game 4 with black against X3D Fritz. The final match result is a 2.0 - 2.0 draw, proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived."
Part of the problem is that Kasparov is this generation's GM. Kasparov plays very emotional games. He's not just looking to beat you in his first match; he's looking to utterly destroy, smash and humiliate you with a dramatic and embarrassing win.
This is a great strategy against people, but it's not so effective against computers. Kasparov is probably the worst chess master to pit against a machine since Ruy Lopez (I think he's won with the Ruy Lopez opening a few times, case in point: it's a brutal and humiliating play for the losing opponent).
Kasparov knows that the computer can "think through" future moves better than he can. Computers, in fact, do the opposite of human chess players: we set goals and try to find ways to get there while computers search through various ways to find a satisfactory goal they can achieve. So, Kasparov plays it very conservative and keeps himself out of any situations that give the computer too much range of foresight, which is why the Kasparov/computer matches tend to look like Verdun (though he's been surprised a few times).
Personally I'd like to see some of the younger generation take on the big programs. They tend to play more technically and less passionately than Kasparov and his generation.
It's nice to hear that Kasparov could keep up with the computer in chess, but what about the ancient Chinese boardgame Go.
Yes, that's right - Go. Computers haven't come close to competing with humans in that game. Yessireebob, Go. Go Go Go Go Go. Can't say enough about it really.
(There isn't a real point to this post. Just trying to get a rise out of SpaceCoyote. This sort of thing tends to put him into fits. Watch for one of his repeated posts.)
Happy people make bad consumers.
Not sure why this is either off thread or funny when the main discussion seems to be game playing AI.
I have no doubt that the focus will move east after chess to tackled. The fact that Go challenges brute force is one of the things that makes it interesting.
I had no intention of this being a troll. All I'm trying to say is that I can't see why we've chosen chess to be the measure of human intelligence vs. machine? I mean, that's why this is interesting right? Otherwise it's just another game. But the computer is just brute forcing it. By playing a more complex game, we can eliminate that and force the computer to stand on strategy. That will be something worth talking about.
Well, I've said my piece. Mod me down again if you like, there's more karma where that came from.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!