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 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
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.
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."
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.
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.
It could only look 12-20 moves into the future, and Kasparov played in a manner to limit what the computer could see by looking ahead. Since the computer had no strategy, but rather always took the best move he could see at the moment, Kasparov could keep him blind and cornered so it didn't see anything usefull to do in the short term, so it ended up flailing about somewhat (notice where it moved a peice and then moved it right back). Then all the meanwhile he was slowly playing out a much longer strategy.
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
> and probably 20-50 or more moves deep in a fairly short amount of time could possibly not win?
Not 20-50 moves deep, closer to 19 half moves. And even that doesn't guarantee victory.
For a textbook case of how to beat a computer, look at game 3. Kasparov went to a closed position, kept material on the board, and slowly forced it back. Meanwhile, the computer could never see what hundreds or thousands saw - that its only chance was to push pawns on the king side. Unfortunately, even seeing 19 half-moves ahead, the computer couldn't bring this to a clear advantage and was stymied by the general principle of "don't move the pawns that are in front of your King."
So the computer wasted time while Kasparov romped.
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
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
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!
What, if any, is the difference between "simulated intelligence" and "actual intelligence"? How do you know that our brains don't function as massivlely parallel search/inference engines?
Discussions about AI usually degenerate pretty quickly into arguments about whether or not we have some invisible, intangible, God-given "soul" or "spirit" or "spark." You're use of the phrase "*miracle of real intelligence*" would lead me to guess that you'd probably come down on the side that favors such a thing.
We humans are self-aware, yet we have not yet explained the mechanism of our self-awareness. Many of us assume that it therefore cannot be explained, that it is miraculous. I think that's a poor assumption. It may be, however, that we are incapable of understanding our own self-awareness, and incapable of understanding our own intelligence. Whether that's true or not, it does not follow that other animals and even machines cannot develop intelligence.
Why is it necessary to build a machine that plays chess "*as a human does*"? It's unlikely that any two humans play chess the same way, so which human would you have the machine emulate? Wouldn't it be better to build a machine that plays chess its own way?
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.
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