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."
The series ended in a draw essentialy because of one move. The move 5. ...a6 in game 3 by the computer is very interesting/controversial. A computer needs to be programmed to play to its strength, i.e open positions. This move reveals a fundamental flaw in the program. The computer chose this even though 6. c5 is among possible replies which forcibly closes the position. So, the programmers did not incorporate best algorithms to avoid closed positions. Instead of 5....a6 why did not the computer choose 5....Be7 which is more in line with convention and less likely to lead to a closed position?
But, whatever might be the case, it was a good show by Kasparov. He showed that computer software has a long way to go more than computer hardware to beat humans.
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived
Sigh. Such an obviously human-biased conclusion to what is indisputably one of the great achievments of computer chess. The fact that Fritz, running on rather modest hardware, drew Kasparov, is an incredible feat. The obvious followup is that the days of a human world champion are numbered. And most likely that number is most conveniently expressed in months, not years.
Running on an Intel Xeon server with four 2.8 GHz processors.
proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived.
Didn't that already happen a few year back when he lost to Deeper Blue?
I really hate Dan Patrick.
What we need next is a one-on-one shoot-out between Kasparov and a robot, both armed with old German lugers. My money's on the robot.
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
[Event "X3D Man-Machine World Championship"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.11.18"]
[Round "4"]
[White "X3D Fritz"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A00"]
[BlackElo "2830"]
[Annotator "Greengard,M"]
[PlyCount "54"]
{60MB, DELL8200} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6
7. Bb3 cxd4 8. exd4 Nc6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Re1 O-O 11. Bf4 Na5 12. d5 Nxb3 13. Qxb3
exd5 14. Rad1 Be6 15. Qxb7 Bd6 16. Bg5 Rb8 17. Qxa6 Rxb2 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19. Qxd6
Qxc3 20. Nd4 Rxa2 21. Nxe6 fxe6 22. Qxe6+ Kh8 23. Rf1 Qc5 24. Qxd5 Rfxf2 25.
Rxf2 Qxf2+ 26. Kh1 h6 27. Qd8+ Kh7 *
...ever heard of a game called "Go"? I'm amazed it's never discussed when we talk about computers playing chess.
All's true that is mistrusted
I don't understand how a computer that can compute millions of moves a sec. and probably 20-50 or more moves deep in a fairly short amount of time could possibly not win? Even a home computer I would think could compute thousands of moves a sec. How could any person possibly out think that???
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
In other news, SkyNet units have been seen closing in on Gary Kasparov. An intercepted transmission read: "take him out, and the humans will be defenseless!"
-T
Why man vs. machine is so important to us is a little baffling. While it might be nice for our egos, what does this really do for the game of chess? Does the challenge make people better chess players? Maybe. Should we consider this any more interesting than a normal game between grandmasters? The Terminator mentality somewhat bothers me, that we feel so insecure about ourselves that we have to congratulate people when they can do something better than a tool can! (Personally I root for the block of silicon ;-)
I was just wondering, how will the chess world handle cyborgs? Will people who have electronic "enhancements" be considered to be cheating? Heck, will they even have time to play chess, or will they be too busy taking over the world? What does everyone else think?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
A win is 1 point for the winner and 0 for the loser. A draw is .5 points for both contestants. Kasparov and Fritz each have one win, one loss, and two draws, or 1.5 + 0.5 = 2.
All's true that is mistrusted
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.
No, the "day of machines" is when machines can create and operate without any human intervention. Clearly, machines can be made to be stronger than humans, and perhaps one day they can be smarter (in everything, not just a highly-specific application). When machines can be both unequivocally stronger and smarter than humans, and do not have to rely on humans to create and maintain themselves, then we'll have a "day of machines".
Meanwhile, my Windows PC can't manage to stay running for a whole day. My Linux server and my PowerBook can, though. Microsoft is fighting to stem the tide of the "day of machines", but Apple and Linux zealots are pushing it forward and will be the death of us all!
Bah, that's not real battle chess. It's not real battle chess unless my knights can slice limbs off opposing knights, and my queen can liquefy pawns.
That was real battle chess.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
It's saying a whole lot that it beat him? I would hope that a machine calculating trillions of moves would be able to. Like a lot of articles I've read, the machine can often pick excellent moves at any given time, but it lacks an understanding of the overall flow of the game, and big-picture strategy. Those kinds of things are hard to figure out for a machine without a soul, even with near-infinite cycles to spend. Until the machine can prove the game and calculate a way to draw every time no matter what moves the other person makes, I think a human will always have a good chance at beating the machine.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
I am not trying to dismiss the feat, no. Chess as a human standing place against the machines are over since Deep Blue. But give credit where credit is due, the feat here is Kasparov's, one of the few humans alive today still capable of beating the machines anytime, anywhere.
It is an interesting coincidence that during the same few years computer chess entered adulthood the best chess player ever born was alive to hold the fort for a while longer. Probably not a coincidence, either.
The players alternate white and black pieces each game. White has an advantage in chess (due in part to it making the first move). Having an odd number of games would give one player the white pieces in one extra game thus giving that player an unfair advantage in the match.
Completely OT, but funny as hell:
...
(Excerpt from World Chess Championship Game 3)
1. d2-d4 g8-f6
2. c2-c4 f7-g6
3. b1-c3 f8-g7
4. e2-e4 d7-d6
5. g1-f3 Qrs-e5
At this point, Karpov tries a new tack with Qrs-e5 (Queen from right sleeve to e5).
6. f1-e2 e7-e5
Kasparov obviously hasn't noticed Karpov's innovative move. Karpov returns to traditional play.
7. c1-e3 Blb-g3 / JbKS
Under the subtle cover of JbS (Jackboot to Kasparov's shin), Karpov introduces a third bishop into play.
8. LIF-KRE d8-e7
Kasparov responds with his trademark LIF-KRE (Left index finger to Karpov's right eye).
9. d4Xe5 $^$%#$
Karpov instinctively howls in pain and immediately offers uncouth theories concerning the likely species of Kasparov's parentage to general audience.
10. Q - KLN Q-KLN
Mutual exchange of Queen to opponent's left nostril.
GAME SUSPENDED FOR TEN MINUTES BY JUDGE
11. c3-d5 e7-d8
It appears the hostility between the chess masters has subsided.
12. SsKH BRHAKH
It appears the judge was mistaken. 10-pound sledgehammer swung by Kasparov in a bold attempt to pin down Karpov's head.(SsKH) Karpov immediately falls back on the classic Beretta Defense (9mmRc-HsAKH - 9mm pistol removed from concealed shoulder holster and aimed at Kasparov's heart)
13. KRMcC
Kasparov revs hidden McCulloch chainsaw.
GAME DECLARED A DRAW BY OFFICIALS
14. KRTT-JF KRTT-JF
Both express extreme displeasure at judges' decision and cunningly respond with the little-known Rin-Tin-Tin Gambit (politely urinating at judges' feet)
14. KKRF-AP
Kasparov and Karpov removed forcibly from arena by angry policemen.
Game 3 is obviously over. Now, for a play-by-play analysis, Mikel Erickson and Michel Joseph from the World Chess Federation.
Erickson: You know, I really feel that Kasparov took control of the match when he attempted to pierce Karpov's cornea. I thought that took real determination, and proved Kasparov's dominance in the cutthroat world of chess.
Joseph: Unfortunately, I can't agree with your assessment of the situation. I'm squarely behind Karpov here. Kasparov didn't display any of the personal integrity I think is critical for a champion. I liked Karpov's honesty with his fifth move, but the way Kasparov concealed that sledgehammer just goes to prove you can't judge a book by its cover.
Erickson: Oh yeah! Well, let me tell you what I think of a certain chess commentator I'm being forced to share this mike with!
1. ertt-jf
I, for one, welcome our new grandmaster-level chess machine overlords.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
As long as the best chess playing computers are still made by humans, I'll feel confident in the superiority of our species.
It's when the best human-made chess playing computers are routinely beaten by the best computer-made chess playing computers that I'll be worried.
The day of the machines is the day we try to play chess with them, and they tell us to piss off because they have better things to do.
The easiest way to describe why Kasparov loses to a computer is because he is human. How often does he play his best chess? Not often - he's human.
The computer, on the other hand, always plays its best chess. So we are often comparing the computer's best vs. Kasparov's weak or mid-level chess, i.e. *mistakes*.
I don't think that Kasparov playing his best and making no mistakes would have any trouble with current computers. But *with* mistakes and fatigue and such...sure.
So the question really becomes, is it as fun to have the computer win when Kasparov makes a mistake? I don't think so. I think the real fun comes when he plays the best he can, is sure he can win, and has the computer do some wicked shit that no one has ever seen. When they staring thinking like humans - only better.
That doesn't seem to have happened yet. They simply have gotten good enough to be able to pounce on GMs that make mistakes, but not on good GMs that don't.
Hell, that's just my observation - I'm no chess or chess AI guru.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
Statistician Jeff Sonas has an interesting article on chessbase.com discussing the history of man vs. machine chess. As for the defeat of Kasparov by Deep Blue, Kasparov had some interesting comments in the Wall Street Journal on that match.
but is a car listed in Guinness under the fastest mile?
Yes.
The one-mile (1.609-km) land speed record is 1,227.985 km/h (763.055 mph), set by Andy Green in Thrust SSC in the Black Rock Desert, Nevada, USA, on October 15, 1997. Thrust SSC (Super Sonic Car) completed its record-breaking run in a matter of seconds, but was the culmination of six years of work and a six-week on-site campaign. Two and a half years of research went into the shape of the Thrust SSC, and building the most powerful car ever took a further two years and 100,000 man-hours.
Guinness World Records
It was a pretty big deal when Babbage built a machine that could do basic arithmetic. I'm sure people thought of his Difference Engine as being a "smart" machine, particularly since it could generate tables of numbers a good deal faster than a human. But if you looked at the machine, it was all cogs and shafts and springs and levers... I'm sure that once you got over the astonishment that a machine could do this seemingly difficult thing, you'd look at it and know that it really was still just a machine, and not truly a thinking thing.
We consider ourselves to do this mysterious thing we call "thinking," but we don't understand in a precise way what this means. It could be that our brains work in an algorithmic fashion, or at least that our brains can be simulated by a machine that works in an algorithmic fashion. The former seems unlikely to me, the latter very likely. Is there a difference between actual thinking and simulated thinking? It's hard to say.
When you look at these chess-playing computers, they're pretty amazing. They can certainly play one hell of a game of chess. But when you get right down to it, they're really solid-state versions of cogs and shafts and springs and levers. Are they thinking? (I want to say 'no', but I can't prove it.) Are they simulating thinking? (Maybe... it's hard to say since we don't know what thinking entails.) Is there a difference?
Are you sure it wasn't some 14 year old teenage girl masquerading as an old man on the Internet?
These things have been known to happen.
The question in my mind is: Kasparov won the last two games. Had there been more than four games in the series, would X3D Fritz have won any games other than the initial two or has Kasparov figured out a strategy to beat Fritz?
I was just wondering, how will the chess world handle cyborgs? Will people who have electronic "enhancements" be considered to be cheating? Heck, will they even have time to play chess, or will they be too busy taking over the world? What does everyone else think?
Oh, man, you are opening a huge can of worms on this one. Here's just a few ideas to think of:
I could go on and on but, seriously, the questions that are going to come up when people start modifying themsevles either genetically or cybernetically are going to be much more serious than whether they are allowed to play in "Open" chess tournaments.
GMD
watch this
you've got the results wrong, they were:
Game 1: Nov. 11
Kasparov 1/2 - 1/2 X3D Fritz
Game 2: Nov. 13
X3D Fritz 1 - 0 Kasparov
Game 3: Nov. 16
Kasparov 1 - 0 X3D Fritz
Game 4: Nov. 18
X3D Fritz1/2 - 1/2 Kasparov
I hate these sort of stories because people read so much crap into them. If you view it as it actually is then fair enough, but if you think this has anything to do with Artificial Intelligence or Machine-Thought you couldn't be further off. This is the extended life of a festering academic dead end that started 30 or so years ago and is wasting time and resources, that could be spent on real research into AI. This is SIMULATED INTELLIGENCE, a machine that does nothing but churn through a DB's and apply brute force search with a coupla crappy heuristics, in an attempt to simulate the appearance of what a human does truly intelligently. The definition of AI should be the research of systems that deal with INFINITE Problem spaces. This is the *miracle of real intelligence* - that we can be addressed with problems with infinite search spaces such as simply walking or crossing a road, and somehow, despite the infinite possibilities come out with a perfect solution. You ever seen a computer try and cope with exponential chaos of juggling? A human can learn in an hour. Chess is a big space but of course a number cruncher will eventually be able to solve it. The real intelligence is how the hell a human is capable of it at all given our limited resources. Build a synthetic machine that can play chess *as a human does*, THEN your on the money, and on the way to creating true AI.
Yeah, thank goodness for my soul. I'd hate to see how badly I sucked at chess if somebody extracted my soul.
I hate this sort of thinking. If the question is, "What is it that allows humans to think abstractly and formulate efficient and creative strategies in the face of novel situations?" answering, "a soul" is just sleight of hand to avoid admitting that we don't know. Positing that every human being has a soul explains nothing, and tells us nothing that we didn't already know. Slapping a label on a phenomenon isn't the same as providing an explanation.
Now, regarding "near-infinite cycles," ask your math teacher about the logic inherent in the phrase.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Yeah, while humans are clearly helped by reading opening books, humans with a mathematical mind can invent them on the spot, to do at least a decent job (though an idea of "decent" varies a lot). It would definitely be a good show of AI for a computer to be able to do that, and they'd probably be closer to figuring out how to get computers to compete with humans in go.
Chess playing programs take advantage of higher CPU speeds, smart tree-traversal routines and other heuristics to explore as many possiblities as they can in a given amount of time, before deciding what the next best move is. Now, I'm not dismissing this as wrong or useless. In fact such techniques are extremely useful in a variety of applications. Call them anything you like, but please don't call them "Intelligent". They are more of a brute force approach where each possible move is checked and the best one is chosen, (although I agree that they do give the impression of intelligent behaviour).
To me, "intelligence" is the ability to adapt to new, unknown environments, and to come up with novel ideas that are outside of a given repertoire. Games of Complete Information like chess do not qualify as test beds for AI. Ask X3D Fritz to calculate the area of the unit circle, and you'll know what I mean. The only reason chess has become such a standard for judging AI is that early AI researchers at MIT made it a goal to write a chess-playing program that can beat humans (for an interesting history of those days, check out "Hackers" by Steven Levy).
There is definitely lots of real research in AI going on. This is just not one of them.
One thing that has been pointed out by numerous posters is the belief that the final result of the match is the result of one bad move in one of the earlier games.
This is not necessarily meaningful. Either player could have played better or worse in any of the positions that came about in the ensuing games, making the actual match results the stuff of speculation about alternate universes.
Be that as it may, two things stand out about the match. The first is that the computer opponent is actually a commercial program running on commercially available hardware and not on specialized circuitry out of a lab somewhere. This alone is a very good indicator of how far computers have come as chess players. Not too long ago (at least in geological terms), there wasn't a chess program on earth that could win against the like of me. Nowadays, by contrast, commercial desktop hardware combined with shrinkwrapped software are giving a former world-champion a run for his money.
The second point of interest in the final game is Kasparov's choice of defenses.
Kapararov is one of the world's greatest experts on the opening--someone who prepares not just against continuations but against his most likely opponents--and yet, with the game and the match on the line he, chose to not play any of the 'milder' defenses to 1.d4 (for example, trying to reprise the line of the Gruenfeld he played against Karpov in one of their matches) but instead chose to play the black side of the Queen's gambit accepted.
When I was growing up and studying, the queen's gambit accepted was known to offer white good chances to develop a strong initiative based on black's disadvantages in central space and white's rapid development, and venturing the black side of Queen's gambit accepted was considered risky.
Apparently, Kasparov knows something I didn't when I was fifteen (duh).
Still, Kasparov's choice of opening certainly led to a difficult position requiring an accurate defense after white developed significant pressure on black's central pawn and on the queenside. However, the pressure rapidly dissipated following a set of exchanges that even gave black a short-lived counterattack on white's king position, leading to a position with even material and no real sources of play for either side, hence the draw.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in a longer match played under a different winning criterion like 'best-of-ten' or 'first to achieve a given score.'
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Well, that's not entirely true. Fritz was trained from Kasparov's games to play Anti-Kasparov chess, just like Kasparov was playing Anti-Computer chess.
All it takes is nukes and nerves.
Attempts to make Turing type B (rulebased, heuristic) chess programs have failed so far, all strong playing programs today are of type A (brute force, with perhaps a little heuristics). You can't just make up simple rules for playing chess, those rules will not account for all possible positions on the board; what's good in one position can be instantly losing in another one.
For instance, even the little heuristics in a type A program such as Fritz can be uttlery wrong. Fritz lost the third game to Kasparov because there was a heuristic programmed into it not to push pawns that protect the king, while Kasparov had chosen an opening that resulted in a position where Fritz' only hope in the long term was to do exactly that. Fritz had not enough processor power to look that far into the game, and Kasparov knew it.
After that, what is the point?
The point is to create machines that play chess better than humans do now, so humans can learn from them and get new insights about the game. We know that it's impossible to play perfect chess (because there are more positions possible than there are atoms in the universe), but we also know that what humans (and computers) play today is still very far from perfect.
It won't be the first time, and it won't be a *thinking* machine - just another specialized machine.
Yeah, the classical AI bait 'n switch. First it's really intelligent to play a nice game of chess or do complicated mathematical equations, but as soon as computers can do it it's no longer thinking. The solution would be to sit down and define what thinking exactly is, except nobody has ever succeeded in doing just that.
It does not take a great programmer to write a program that cannot lose at tic-tac-toe against a human.
Yeah, but at the same time no one has written a chess program that cannot lose against a human. Humans still play better chess than computers do, even though the difference between them is getting smaller.
When a computer wins a poker tournament, then we can talk about the "day of the machines." Until then, it's nothing more than a series of mathematical calculations, not a test of chess strategies.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
If you read the analyses, there's some advice for beating chess computers.
Chess computers have large opening databases. If they can make a database move, while the human has to think, the computer gets the edge due to the reduced amount of time they need to make a database move.
During the games, Kasparov tried to play unusual moves in the opening to knock the computer out of its database as early as possible. One example from game 2 is Kasparov's move 8...Re8, which is annotated with "This move by Kasparov had never been played before in this exact position." This knocked Fritz out of its opening database, and forced it to calculate.
A more striking example of the way to beat chess computers is the great wall of pawns that dominated game 3. Chess computers cannot evaluate such positions properly. If you built a wall of pawns like that, and snuck your forces behind them, you are a good chance of winning because the computer cannot calculate deeply enough.
Some more info here and here.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Whoa whoa whoa... the implication that computers never choke is entirely too strong. I'll submit that a computer will probably never make the same kind of mistakes that a human does (unless we achieve perfect AI), but a computer is still made of materials governed by the laws of physics. There is always a non-vanishing probability that a bit can be flipped, or a series of bits that avoid error detection. Now, whether or not this is the same as a human "choking" in the heat of the moment is a discussion about semantics.
Physics: Making the universe open source.
Well, perhaps a human could have beaten him in game three *IF* he played the same anti-computer chess against the human in question. Presumably he would know he was playing against a human, and not waste moves on anti-computer techniques like that pawn move on the king's side.
It would be interesting to do a chess-based Turing Test. Have Kasparov play an exhibition with three simultaneous games, where he doesn't know which one is the computer. See if he can pick it out.
-Graham
It could be that in the future the best chess playing computer isn't programmed at all. Instead it's merely told what the rules of the game are and it's then left to figure out on it's own the best strategies to play. Sort of a genetic chess algorithm.
There is a good example of this put into practice by a researcher who was experimenting with neural nets implemented in FPGA chips to create rectifying circuits. He'd setup a random set of interconnections and then through elimination have a program make changes to the chip until it got the desired results. Only keeping the changes that improved the design and discarding the others.
When it was all said and done, the researcher got an rectifying circuit that uses alot less space and gates then it should, and he didn't clearly understand how it worked. Turns out his program had stumbled into a previously unknown characteristic of the interaction of gates in proximity.
Now just imagine if this were done to create a chess computer.
You could possibly get a chess computer that can beat anybody, but nobody would entirely understand how it works on the inside...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.