Slashdot Mirror
Chess - 2070 CPUs vs 1 GM
jvarsoke writes "ChessBrain.net broke the world's record for 'largest number of distributed computers used to play a single game' by holding a chess match between Danish GM Peter Heine Nielsen and the equivalent of SETI@home (which similarly, has some people looking for a Mate). 2070 CPU's from 56 countries aided Black by running the chess program Beowulf, including a couple of University clusters. Their supernode ran Linux, and MySQL. The game was relayed by FICS. Results can be viewed here(1) and here(2)."
The problem with this is that it seems to assume that chess is a difficult problem. It isn't. Modern chess algorithms are really simple search-and- prune systems, relying on the computer's immense number-crunching ability to overcome the more heuristic human mind. Unfortunately, this isn't very interesting. What's the point? We know that computers can search faster than a human. See: Google. All these projects (DeepBlue, Fritz, this) accomplish is trivializing the game of chess, which is rather sad. Now, I'll be really annoyed when Go programs start improving to a 'decent amateur' level...
The theorists would disagree with you; computers are extremely good at assessing a *large* number of potential outcomes. Humans, however, are much better at pattern recognition and whilst they can only consciously assess a dozen or two moves, they have most of the work done for them by the functionality in the human brain which causes them to recognise patterns and possibilities far more efficiently than any computer we have now (or will in the forseeable future) will.
Computers can certainly give GM chess players a run for their money - no-one's disputing this; but ultimately, barring a total change of direction in programming/processor/logic/chess theory, they're still just applying what basically boils down to a probability-based brute force method to chess-playing - the human method is far more elegant.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you
To give credit to Danish GM Peter Heine Nielsen, I would have to say if there were only 2069 CPUs then he might of just won... :P (J/KING)
More interestingly, would the ChessBrain.net team would of won with more CPUs?
With two people, there are some elements that can not be programmed into a chess game. I remember in high school playing chess, there was a differance between playing a math academy team and a school best known for its basketball program. Expectations were different, the pressure was different. I remember the pressure of the state finals. There is the look the other person has, almost like poker. Can I bluff this person? Can I trick this person? What about the clock, can I manipulate that to cause an emotion in the other person.
Maybe Spock can play a PC and have no differance in quality of play. But I prefer humans.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I want to see this cluster take on IBM's system!
Has anyone ever written a system by which a large number of average chess players could collaborate to play a single game? The individuals could vote for the best move, and the majority would rule. Would a group like this be able to beat a high ranking player?
While this is true and I definitely agree with your sentiments, it should be noted that players at the GM level spend a considerable amount of time in preparation for their specific opponents. They spend countless hours analyzing the games of the person that they will be playing tomorrow. In this sense, a computer will and already is better facilitated to analyzing styles/methods/openings/etc. to play against a human than any human being is capable of. A computer could easily go through every game someone has ever played and at least know which opening(s) to present and which variations based on statistics. While a human might have some intuition, the computer should have a more comprehensive view of this.
GMs don't even play to mate anymore
Only rank beginners (say less than a couple months into chess) ever play to mate. Its obvious who's going to win long before mate happens. To continue playing is a waste of both players' time, not to mention an insult to the opponent's intelligence.
they just play out an opening move .
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Grandmasters do an enormous amount of research into finding new moves in openings. They don't "memorize" them. There are five volumes of the ECO chess encyclopedia, and that just covers the basics!
and whoever has the upper hand at the end takes the game
No of course they don't. This is simply false, period. Why do you think there are things called "middlegame" and "endgame"??
Its sad that because most moderators aren't chess players, anyone can write ridiculous BS and get modded up "+5, interesting".
Why do you believe that over a 5 match series the GrandMaster will win handily?
If ChessBrain refused some normal traps that computers normally fall for, then could it be the case that the computer is better than you realise. What if the drawn match was a bad one for the computer?
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
As perceptive as that statement might be on the surface (and it is *VERY* perceptive), it draws a false analogy between chess and arithmetic. First off, arithmetic is a human activity that is engaged in by most people only as a matter of necessity and the removal of the need for deep ability in it brought about by the development of the electronic calculator is a universal boon (people no longer need a facility for calculation, a *talent,* to apply formulae).
Chess on the other hand, is an activity engaged in on a purely elective basis and it is a contest between two people. It touches upon and broadens our instinctive need for comparison and competition. Unlike the algorithmic provisions of arithmetic, chess has a soul and that soul is the simple wager between two people who bring their respective talents and knowledge (tactics, strategy, knowledge of opening and endgame theory) to the board and each of the players wagers that he/she knows enough and is talented enough to reach an-as-yet-unknown set of winning criteria against any opposition the other player can create with no more information to work with than the initial position.
Your reasoning ignores the need for competition and the glories that come from it. It is true the combination of better and better hardware and software will certainly make a computer the strongest chess-player in the world, sooner rather than later, but that day will mark a small diminishing of human worth in the world. Of course, this is a matter of opinion, an esthetic judgement and not logically demonstrable but the strength of it can be shown by three simple questions:
1. Would a football game where all the players were robots be interesting?
2. Would a world-class violin performance have meaning if the player was a pair of mechanical arms?
3. Would anything be permanantly lost to the world if any of the above players was smashed to pieces?
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
There are approximately 35 moves per position in Chess (average value). Thus, the branching factor of the search tree is ~35 with a simple min-max search. Assuming that the program is always picking the best move to search first -- which is obviously not systematically the case -- alpha-beta pruning allows us to get a branching factor equal to approximately the square root of 35, that is: close to 6.
Assuming that 2070 CPU are able to do the calculations 2070 times faster than 1 CPU -- which, again, is not the case -- it appears that the resulting supernode is able to 'see' up to 4 or 5 half-moves deeper than a single CPU in the same amount of time:
6^4 < 2070 < 6^5
It doesn't seem to be *that* useful. For most strategical positions, thinking 5 half-moves deeper just doesn't make any difference. Game 3 of 'Kasparov vs X3D Fritz' is a good example: I'd be willing to bet that 2070 X3D Fritz playing together would have lost the game the same way, since the serious troubles caused by the pawns diagonal are still far beyond the resulting analysis depth. (Well... At least, I think so. I'm not a Chess expert!)
Anyway, this is quite an interesting project. I hope to see it grow up in the future.
-- Arnauld
The problem with Slashdot memes is that YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!
Well, you got to understand. Closed source for a distributed project is a good thing, because people can tamper with the client and make it give bad results, or the results you do not want.
You raise an interesting point. Most commentators believe that chess in the limit is not a forced win for either side. Current belief is that if chess is played (by optimal players) to the end, it's a draw.
That makes chess fundamentally just a zero-sum game somewhere between tic-tac-toe and poker (two other zero-sum games when played by perfect players). Chess Grandmasters typically can play for the draw if they want, but that makes the game like tic-tac-toe. Human players are fallible, humans instead play for the win and play the player not the game itself. (Consider this: Why do people switch openings?)
Hence, chess is also like poker, insofar as in both games all upsets among great players are psychological.