World Computer Chess Championships Underway

azaris writes "While the FIDE World Championships for human players in Tripoli, Libya are down to the last two contestants, the computers are playing their own 12th World Computer Chess Championship in Ramat-Gan, Israel. How will the open source chess engine Crafty do against the proprietary closed engines? Will the computers play more interesting chess than their human counterparts?"

Comments

Interesting computer Chess?

[gambit3]

Will the computers play more interesting chess than their human counterparts?"

I don't think so (replying to the question posed by the original poster), because I believe a well-programmed algorithm would care only about winning, and not necessarily taking chances or exploring possibilities that a human player would...

Re:Interesting computer Chess?

[kyle_b_gorman]

you think kasparov is interested in any move that won't (at least indirectly) help him win?

Re:Interesting computer Chess?

[ookabooka]

True, except human players can make simple mistakes. A computer never makes a mistake, it just only looks so far. Deep Fritz 8 has beatten Kasporov. I mean, if you can evaluate 2.4 million positions a second (i can on my dually) there does come a point where a human player cant keep up, what if that were 24 million, 240 million? Computers dont have finite limits like a person. It used to take a super computer to even compete with a GM (grandmaster) now the average home computer can give him a run for his money.

Re:Interesting computer Chess?

[Short Circuit]

Except a human has this neat thing called intuition.

Your intuition can tell you things that will take you hours and hours to prove on paper. Or even in your head, following logic.

Re:Interesting computer Chess?

[TastyWords]

Tal may not have had as many problems as suggested. One of the issues for the computerized chess is when there are no time limits - grind, grind, grind, ...

When they're playing on the clock, it makes a world of difference.

Re:Interesting computer Chess?

[AshtangiMan]

yes he is . . . but not from the economic only standpoint that the computer algorithms demand. Looking at even recent Kasparov games shows that he does not play the economy equation the way computers do. This is why he (and the other human) chess players are infinitely interesting to watch, while the computer, while nearly unbeatable, is also very boring.

Re:Interesting computer Chess?

[raytracer]

Except a human has this neat thing called intuition.

Your intuition can tell you things that will take you hours and hours to prove on paper. Or even in your head, following logic.

Indeed. Once in a great, great while, your intuition may even tell you something which turns out to actually be true.

Go is tougher

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory GO reference.
Put your own AI search tree bullshit here.

First "GO" Post

[Saeger]

Forget chess. To truly push the limits of computing and AI we should instead be trying to improve on the ancient game of "Go". No computer can even come close to besting a human here yet.

--

Re:First "GO" Post

[Dan Ost]

Give it time. Once computers are consistently beating the greatest human
players, the same clever people who worked so hard on building computer
chess players will find new problems to spend their time on. Go will certainly
be on of them.

Re:First "GO" Post

[wviperw]

Uh oh, here come the "Go" zealots.

And what happens when computers master Go? Then there will be those that say "To truly push the limits of computing and AI the computer should master the art of interpretive dance," or whatever you want to place in there. The truth is, people will ALWAYS try to come up with areas in which they are better than the computer (emotion, art, feelings, abstract thought, etc).

I believe Turing predicted something similar to this around 60 years ago.

Re:First "GO" Post

[Russellkhan]

I am very glad that you've posted about Go. It's a beautiful game and more people in the western world should know about it.

That said, I've never understood why so many Go players treat Go and Chess as an either/or, one vs the other type of choice. I play both Go and chess, and while I can easily see that there remain much greater challenges in computerized Go playing programs than in Chess (For those who don't know, the best Go playing programs play at roughly the level of an intermediate amateur human player), this fact does not take away from the fact that chess is still an interesting game, both to play and, I'm sure, to develop better computer opponents for. Nor does the work being done on chess take anything away from Go development.

While I'm here, I may as well post a Go wiki link in a wiki that's all about Go. I realize you (parent poster) probably know about it, but just in case anyone is interested in learning more about Go, I figure it's a nice starting point.

Re:USA?

[jfengel]

That seems a little harsh. Americans are active pursuers of all sorts of intellectual activity, from art to literature to science to technology. Many open-source developers are Americans. Americans have a boatload of Nobel prizes.

So chess doesn't happen to be the obsession here that it is in Russia. They're not so good at soccer, either. BFD. It doesn't mean that they do nothing but watch reality TV.

Re:Most interesting part of computer championships

[Short Circuit]

Computers do not settle for draws like humans do in face of complications.

Sure they can, if they're directed to minimize losses.

Personally, I'm curious why game theory software doesn't have the kinds of export restrictions that encryption software or computing hardware does.

computer vs human players

[spacerodent]

One of the main things that will never really be present in computer players is human reaction. A human may bluff, or try to call a bluff, or deliberatly do somthing retarded to cause you to underestimate them. Until the devlopment of true Ai there will never really be an "exciting" computer match. Currently computers simply calculate the most "efficient" move and take it. Thats like listening to a recording of music instead of playing it yourself.

Re:computer vs human players

[romango]

There's no reason a computer couldn't be programmed to make trick moves occasionally.

Re:computer vs human players

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

As computers get better and better at chess humans will go on finding more and more dumb aspects of the game that they claim is what makes it interesting. If programmers wanted a machine to bluff they would - but why bother, bluffing against a grandmaster is generally a very bad strategy.

Re:computer vs human players

[fw3]

At this level, the human players are decidedly *not* doing anything to intentionally cause the opponent to underestmate thier skill.

In chess as in most competition the first step to *losing* is assuming your opponent will make a mistake (including the mistake of not recognizing *your* mistakes).

'True Ai' exists. AI methods have been tried in chess and so far they simply do not work as well as brute force evaluation based on material gain.

That may change someday however the progress / work to date is no indicator that it's going to be any time soon.

On the other hand games between humans and computers have been considered 'interesting' by master-level players so if that's your criteria for 'True Ai' ...

Re:USA?

[zokrath]

Indeed; few other first world countries have such a stigma against using your mind for more noble functions. Having extended experience with computers and programming brings a label of 'pathetic nerds', while useless sports knowledge and statistics is often considered par for the course.

Luckily I was in the gifted program in Junior High and High School, where all of the teachers were dedicated Masters holders, and a much smaller percentage of students had an active criminal record.

No doubt partially responsible is the fact that intellectual careers, even in the upper echelons, are generally long term group based projects with little individual recognition for the scientists. It is the company or academic insitution that gets most of the credit.

Sure, there is the Nobel prize, but it is playing cath up and is so behind the times that when it awards someone for a contribution to everyday life, that contribution has most likely already become commonplace, so most people, if they even hear about it, think "Oh, he invented the microwave, that's nice, but those have been around forever..."

Meanwhile sports teams with annual grosses exceding countries demand that hundred of millions be spent on a new stadium or else they will abandon the city for green pastures.

I say that an additional 10% tax needs to be placed on all sports salaries greater than one million a year, with all of that tax revenue going towards funding for research and dedvelopment of things that will actually benefit mankind. Hell, put another 10% on salaries over two million and put that towards societal reforms.

Capitalism is great, but there is no reasonf or it to be unbridled like it is today. such a tiny percentage of people controlling a vasty majoority of wealth is pointless and harms the long term potential of our country.

Well that certainly go off track a bit.

Re:USA?

[Vellmont]

More like the US didn't (and doesn't) have state sponsored chess schools like the former Soviet Union did. If chess is such a great "purely intellectual pursuit", then why aren't all the great chess masters great geniuses and create wonderful things outside of chess? Chess may be a fun game and all, but all this connection between chess and "being intellectual" is just nonsense.

Crafty prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Crafty is strong, but it does not have the staff of the other engines. They have paid staffs that work to strengthen and bugtest their engines. Crafty has some people that do this for free of course, but they don't spend nearly as much time as paid full-time staffs.

Re:USA?

[humblecoder]

All five of the players listed as from USA have blatantly obvious Russian (and one Japanese) names. Looks like no native players in this one (again). Alas, purely intellectual pursuits are frowned upon in these here parts.


No offense but this is one of the STUPIDEST comments I've ever read on slashdot. Actually, I take that back... I do mean to offend you.

Who's to say that the American players aren't fifth generation Americans? Just because they have an "ethnic" surname doesn't mean a thing? Surely you don't expect people to change their names to "Smith" or "Jones" upon obtaining American citizenship, do you? I mean, really!

Obvious "intellectual pursuits" like logic and rational thought are frowned upon in whatever parts you hail from, as well! If you are an American then maybe you have just proven your own argument, in which case I apologize.