Slashdot Mirror
Linux Chess Supercomputer Overpowers Grandmaster
Capt Bubudiu writes "Deep Blue vs. Kasparov is something most readers will remember but when Deep Blue was retired by IBM, a Dubai company took over with Hydra.
In a $150,000 6-game challenge in Wembley UK, the
games got off to a humiliation for mankind as Michael Adams, the
UK Grandmaster, was mauled in games one and three, drawing game two. Adams is ranked seventh
in the world and what ordinary mortals call a 'Super Grandmaster'."
The interesting thing is that in a man vs. machine fight, the tech folks can say "we won" as they assembled the machine. Is it a humiliation or triumph for mankind that it can build a machine that can defeat itself? I think it would rather be a failure for humans if mortals can defeat highly optimized machines.
see a Text Widget
First move!
I dont get it. Why is it so amazing that computers beat human beings in chess? Isnt chess all about logic and calculation? Arent computers all about logic and calculation?
If both are true, then how come it is so amazing that a computer beat a human being in chess?
Wouldnt it be more amazing if a human being beat a chess computer?
Is it possible that a computer could compute every possible move, make a database of it, and win automatically every time?
I, for one, welcome our new Chess Playing Computer Overloards.
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
No one cares and or has any mod points today :)
No. Stop thinking so hard.
... that computers will beat a man at chess all the time they are allowed to use a database on positions.
The time to get scared is when a 'thinking' computer chess program does it all for scratch from the first move.
Having said that, GNUChess 0wn35 me bigtime, the bugger.
In 50 years will chess club be dominated by nerds who know how to build computers and write software or by the humans who take the time to learn the game? Society is becoming more and more oriented towards computers and I wouldnt be surprised if in the future people judge their skill based on who can write a better program for their computer, rather than knowing how to play the game itself. It's just too bad these computers don't give lessons.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
If a computer could do it 8 years ago, then with Moore's law, this is 1/(2^5) as interesting as it was then. Did it quickly by hand.
Thank goodness I'm a Vulcan!
Read about how chess computers work. There are 10^120 possible moves for a certain "tree" sequence of moves. Today's chess computers evaluate millions of moves per second, far short of all possible moves, due to computing limitations.
It's interesting to note that both grandmasters and amateurs have been shown to think only 3-5 moves in the future, while computers calculate for 10-20. Despite that, humans are still competitive with computers in chess (losing some games, winning others), showing there's more to the game than how far one can predict. Those 3-5 predictions of a grandmaster will differ from those of the amateur, and those 10-20 of the computer.
Computers can also multiply hundred-digit integers faster than humans.
I'd like to see a computer beat the best Go players. Or how about a computer that can beat the best human chess players at Fischerandom chess
Why even mention the Operating System in something like this? It's pretty much irrelevant what operating system you're using, in fact you could probably spend two days or so converting the program to run without any operating system at all.
Actually, the time to get scared is when a chess computer becomes sentient, creates an army of robots and enslaves the organic world. Our only hope then will be the chess grandmasters, academic athletes turned heroes of mankind.
I don't like this. Chess is a human game. You can't play chess with a computer any more than a monkey. It is like sex. Sure, you can get porn off the web, but the human element is best.
Real chess is about looking across the table, sizing your opponent, psychology, not always logic. Can I bait this guy? No. What can I do. Do I want to play to beat him with the clock?
I know, they can program a computer to know every possible move, to know all past games. But what happens when the computer gets an updated OS or new CPU, does its ranking change? A person can't get a new brain, or more memory. And if you have a computer, it is only as good as the number of moves it knows in its database. A human can learn on the fly.
And what will this tell manufacturors? I am sure someone over at GM is looking at this and wondering how many more jobs they can cut and replace with computers. I hope people like talking to computers and not customer service reps. I feel bad for the people in India, they are about to get outsourced.
I take awe at people who can accomplish great things. I take awe when I watch the olympics and I see the worlds fastest people. I don't take awe when I see a hyundi on the highway at 70mph.
One more thing to consider. Would a machine ever have gone to Yugoslavija during a time of sanctions? Bobby Fisher did, and with it he sent a political statement.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I bet I can beat every supercomputer on Earth.. If you just allow me to pull the plug ;)
... as the web site crawls to a halt.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I'm still waiting for the day where a supercomputer can win a rap battle against a human...
A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
go player..
Also a lil info from Wiki on Go and Computers:
Computers and Go
Main article: Computer Go
Although attempts have been made to program computers to play Go, success in that area has been moderate at best - development in this area has not reached the level of Chess programs. Even the strongest programs are no better than an average club player, and would easily be beaten by a strong player even getting a nine-stone handicap. This is attributed to many qualities of the game, including the "optimising" nature of the victory condition, the virtually unlimited placement of each stone, the large board size, the nonlocal nature of the Ko rule, and the high degree of pattern recognition involved. For this reason, many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess.
Use of computer networks to allow humans to meet, discuss games, and play one another, although generally considered inferior to face-to-face play, is becoming much more common. There are servers and software to facilitate this; see Additional Resources below for more information.
n/t
Phew, for a minute then I thought the machines had risen and were exterminating mankind.
You see, for some people we don't just not RTFA, but we also don't RTF subject.
Often i'll not even read the title and just imagine up my own interesting news for nerds.
Like:
Monkeys become sentient and megalomaniacal. Invades Sweden for no apparent reason.
RIAA sues *insert file sharing company here* the *insert organisation name* is outraged, *insert frail child or elderly person* shocked.
After overpowering the Grandmaster, the supercomputer chess-bot was heard to say
"I am Bender, please insert girder"
It can be interesting to see a championship of computers vs. computers, with similar technology but different programming.
To watch a computer defeating a man playing chess is not even interesting anymore, is like trying to do multiplications faster than a calculator (I know some people claim that).
now if we can just get a machine to 'confirm you're not a script' by typing the seven letters shown in the image.
Marcus Hutter's AIXI paper provides a proof that if an agent is a good model for human behavior, and the universe is computable, that the most intelligent program is the smallest program that losslessly compresses the set of observations of the universe.
I've formalized a prize competition based on this criterion as the C-Prize, modeled after the Methusela Mouse Prize. The big difference is that instead of lifespan the metric is intelligence. Here is the currently published C-Prize criteria:
Since all technology prize awards are geared toward solving crucial problems, the most crucial technology prize award of them all would be one that solves the rest of them:
The C-Prize -- A prize that solves the artificial intelligence problem.
The C-Prize award criterion is as follows:
Let anyone submit a program that produces, with no inputs, one of the major natural language corpora as output.
S = size of uncompressed corpus
P = size of program outputting the uncompressed corpus
R = S/P (the compression ratio).
Award monies in a manner similar to the M-Prize:
Previous record ratio: R0
New record ratio: R1=R0+X
Fund contains: $Z at noon GMT on day of new record
Winner receives: $Z * (X/(R0+X))
Compression program and decompression program are made open source.
Explanation A very severe meta-problem with artificial intelligence is the question of how one can define the quality of an artificial intelligence.
Fortunately there is an objective technique for ranking the quality of artificial intelligence:
Kolmogorov Complexity
Kolmogorov Complexity is a mathematically precise formulation of Ockham's Razor, which basically just says "Don't over-simplify or over-complicate things." More formally, the Kolmogorov Complexity of a given bit string is the minimum size of a Turing machine program required to output, with no inputs, the given bit string.
Any set of programs which purport to be the standards of artificial intelligence can be compared by simply comparing their Artificial Intelligence Quality. Their AIQs can be precisely measured as follows:
Take an arbitrarily large corpus of writings sampled from the world wide web. This corpus will establish the equivalent of an IQ test. Give the AIs the task of compressing this corpus into the smallest representation. This representation must be a program that, taking no outside inputs, produces the exact sample it compressed. The AIQ of an AI is simply the ratio of the size of the uncompressed writings to the size of the program that, when executed, produces the uncompressed writings.
In other words, the AIQ is the compression ratio achieved by the AI on the AIQ test.
The reason this works as an AI quality test is that compression requires predictive modeling. If you can predict what someone is going to say, you have modeled their mental processes and by inference have a superset of their mental faculties.
Mechanics The C-Prize is to be modeled after the Methusela Mouse Prize or M-Prize where people make pledges of money to the prize fund. If you would like to help with the set up and/or administration of this prize award similar to the M-Prize let me know by email.
Seastead this.
Regardless of which operating system was used in this chess match, the sole determining factor is the hardware. Remember that Deep Blue defeated Kasparov with the more aesthetic MacOS, even though Kasparov is a more respected member of the chess community.
Linux zealots will cling to this "small victory", but software is only a means to an end.
Even SkyNet still can't count the possible moves of John O'Connor.
The hardware and software engineers who built and programmed that computer were the ones who achieved the victory - the computer has no understanding of chess, nor in fact any capacity of understanding.
Now if they designed a general purpose AI that then learned to play chess and trounced a great-grand master (or whatever they are called), that would be a computer defeating a human.
sic transit gloria mundi
I could beat the computer in a boxing match.
Anyways, everybody knows a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of brains.
In Soviet Russia Linux Chess Supercomputers overpower YOU!
March of the Penguins
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Tic tac toe. I have yet to find a computer that can beat me at that.
How does the human rate on performance/Watt compared to the machine? Isn't that what's important these days?
So what. Chess is so one-diminsional. I wonder how good that machine would do at a real skill game, like Rock, Paper, Scissors.
SEO Firefox Extension
Chess is a game of pattern matching that requires basically no abstract though (well, OK it requires a little, but for the most part, it's just data recall). Computers ought to trounce human beings at this sort of endeavor.
Wake me up when a computer can beat a Go master...
gameDB
I am deeply ashamed that we have developed machines that are stronger than us. Clearly, because machines can outlift and outwork us, we have lost our purpose as humans.
And computers can outcalculate us in highly linear situations. It is time to pull the plug on humanity, and let the chess programs and heavy lifting equipment to collaborate...
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Let me tell you my logic.
The USA has the biggest economy, the best army, we do everything the best. It is not like we steal or lie or cheat to deprive others of what is theirs.
Okay... there was a heavy element of sarcasm there.
But honestly, looking at that list, is there anything it can tell us about a countries intellectual power? Or could it be just as easy to replace the title of the paper from "Top 100 Chess players" to "Autism list"? Does being good at chess correlate to anything else? Does chess score indicate IQ? Does chess scores indicate earning power? Anyone have a t-shirt that says "I play chess... Love me before I become rich"?
And why is Bobby Fisher not listed. Do people lose their rankings if they don't play for a set time. It seems only fair for a person to keep their ranking when they retire.
And this gives me one interesting idea. I wonder if instead of a super computer, we can recreate one man. If we can take the thinking process of one person, and program a computer. That way, people who live 400 years from now will be able to play me.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I rarely post, but I thought this might be worth reminding people of.
While computers are easily tactical masters of chess playing - in that they can immediately anaylze all possible moves availible in a given play, and determine possible outcomes, their fallacy comes in strategy, because, put simply, they don't know how to win.
What is a good move? Is it one that results in a opposing piece's defeat? If so - what value should that piece be assigned? Indeed, what is the value of _any_ piece at any given time on the boards - why should a machine choose one set of perfect moves over another - in almost every way a computer cannot determine the long term value of a move.
This is remedied somewhat by having pre-played game analysis at the disposal of the machine, but in almost every case the computer program requires serious recalibration between matches to prevent a human player from adapting to a strong tactical game. It is by no stretch that computers can be considered inferior in almost every way to a strong human player.
Kasparov posited Advanced Chess as the ultimate play form; the tactical mastery of a computer, mixed with the multilevel strategy of a grandmaster player, making for a game of sublime subtley and perfection.
And when (not if), GO AI has progressed to the point of beating really good humans, you'll yawn and say wake me up when they can play So what's your fucking point?
:)
I think we'll just let you sleep
~mantis
Then we'll see. Until then you can't even reliably say that computers are better than humans at playing chess.
The two Hydra machines did not even make it into the final sixteen. Moreover, the eventual winners were a couple of amateurs using pretty ordinary PCs running over-the-counter chess programs. On the way to the title they beat a selection of computer- and supergrandmaster-assisted grandmasters.
On this evidence the "strongest chess entity on the planet" is a team consisting of a New Hampshire database administrator + a soccer coach + 3 ordinary PCs.
Links:
Hydra knocked out
Final result
Winners debriefing
You can watch the current game live on fics (free internet chess server). It is interesting to see how Adams has adapted his strategy thoughout this series. This game, it appears (I'm not a grand master so take this with a grain of salt) that Adams traded agressively to shorten the game. At the time of this post, Adams was down a pawn (1 rook and 3 pawns to 1 rook and 2 pawns). It also appears that Adams should be able to even the material in the next couple of moves even though Adams is currently in check. Anyway, log on to www.freechess.org and ob 37 if you want to watch.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Deep Blue ran under AIX, not MacOS.
And why does it matter the thing runs on Linux ?
Get over it. Humiliation for manking is killing each other in the name of religion, oil and what not. Goddamn.
so...heres a question, whats the point to ranking this stuff? 'grandmaster' 'super grandmaster' ya know...it sounds like marketing to me more than anything...as is most things these days...how about 'some boob who doesnt get laid much and plays more chess than with himself'? id watch a match with a title like that...even for a laugh :D
LONG LIVE HOWARD STERN!!!
Conan O'Brien's Head: Yeah, well at least I have something you'll never have! A soul!
Bender: Big deal!
Conan O'Brien's Head: And freckles!
Bender: (crying) Whaa...ha..ha...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Bobby Fisher may be a bitter anti setmitic inhabitant of the lunatic fringer, but he's right about one thing. The reason computers beat humans isn't because they think better, it's because they don't forget stuff.
If fisher random or one of the other shuffle chess variants were used, computers would most likely only make mediocre opponents.
Deep blue cost how much? The price of a human chess player is only whatever it costs to raise her/him. Undoubtedly still a much more efficient use of resources, and (having children myself) a much better excercise in patience.
m
"Overpowered," huh? I immediately imagined the machine LOSING, then transforming into something like Optimus Prime and overpowering the GrandMaster.
Cue Transformers music bumper.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
demolished the field of the international computer rock paper scissors contest with its 6 levels of sicillian reasoning. (I know what you're thinking; but you know that I know what your're thinking; but since I know that you know that I know what you're thinking - I can beat you).
What's amazing about it is that this computer was running Linux. Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings? ;^)
I know there is a lot of mental skill involved in chess and I want to become better. Although playing is a sure fire way to learn mistakes, I would like to read a book before jumping into the fold again. Any recommendations?
Actually, what I thought was more impressive than this was noting the number of female grandmasters in that FIDE link above. It's about time! (Is the fact that none of them are American have something to say about cultural discouragement of intellectual excellence in women here?)
In Korea only old people get overpowered by Linux Chess Supercomputers.
Any more than races between horses and horseless carriages. I mean people are not machines, get over it.
Compression is a far better basis for intelligence competition than chess, the Turing test or even SAT verbal analogy tests.
Or view intelligence as a signal to noise ratio with more signal representing a greater degree of some type of information. Compression is not intelligence, it is representation.
This representation must be a program that, taking no outside inputs, produces the exact sample it compressed.
All compressed representations of information as we know it today compress by replacing a percieved order with smaller tokens with the effect that the data becomes more and more random until it has reached it's maximum compression and no new order can be tokenized.
The reason this works as an AI quality test is that compression requires predictive modeling. If you can predict what someone is going to say, you have modeled their mental processes and by inference have a superset of their mental faculties.
Compression is not predictive. While there is a grain of truth with prediction, it's more like intelligence is the ability to predict and apply the predictions to create a desired outcome within your environment. It is dark. I predict flicking that switch will create light. Flick's switch. And to model someone's processes to the detail that they do your would need about three pounds of meat plus your extra process modeler to do so accurately. Of course there would be ethical problems with doing so.
Shh.
By then, there will be a lot of geeks that can play chess quite well because they have nano implants and net connections so that an un-moddified stock person will have a lese-than-zero chance of winning. It would make more sense to match modded/geek to modded/geek and stock people to stock people, just like future olympics will have the gene-modded people, who's going to want to compete against them and win, what, 1 in 10000 times?
And at that, I'm using a Serial (RS232C) 4D 3-button mouse. Does that make me a Serial killer among slashbots? Oh and I believe,
First Serial Post
on the Serial killing thing.
Ah, a gambit!
Until computer beats some junior level GO player, then we need to worry.
EVERYTHING is a means to an end. The important thing is what kind of software has the most utility. Free open source software has (all other factors being equal) more utility than proprietary software because people are not inhibited from building upon existing work since they aren't encumbered by lack of 'copyright' rights as they are with non-free software.
I had a friend who played chess competively. He eventually stopped and I asked him why. He couldn't afford it, he said. Huh? Airfare to tournaments? I wondered.
"No," he replied, "I can afford to maintain my library."
Yes, his chess library of opening moves. He couldn't keep it at the level he needed it. That certainly brought a new perspective to the game.
I see your gambit and raise you a countergambit
Does this count?
It's John Henry all over again. Computers can add, divide, calculate, compare etc. faster than us humans. Humans also build the machines to lift and drive steel better than their creators. It's the design and creation which distinguishes from the machines we create.
Deep Blue beat Kasparov way back (computer years) in 1997, so in my mind the "chess problem" has been solved, perhaps it was a brute force approach, but solved nonetheless. The history of computing so far has been the trend of things getting cheaper and faster. I wouldn't be stunned if in 2020 a device you could hold in your hand and paid $250 for could defeat any human at chess with the right software.
While the search space may branch more quickly in Go, relative to chess, this is not the primary source of the difficulty of Go. The primary reason why Go is hard is that the results of any move are not fully apparent until the distant future.
A blunder in chess will typically result in a loss of material or a significant measurable disadvantage within five moves or less, and often on the very next move. A blunder in Go may only become apparent forty moves later. Forty moves is well beyond the limits of current technology.
A possible side effect of this (just conjecture), is that it is also much harder to measure the effects of sacrificial moves in Go.
Its indicitive of how much more complicated and interesting go is by the fact that the best bots in the world are only low amature level.
Other than Deep Blue, HYDRA uses dedicated logic, not just a cluster of standard PCs.
Each of the 64 processors in the cluster includes an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) card from XiLinx, which are significantly faster than Pentium or Athlon.
Cool.
Chess matches between humans and computers are not what they seem- the computer has a huge advantage that amounts to a cheat, specifically, the computer has access to all of its opponent's (the human's) previous games, while the human has no such access to the computer's previous games. Typically, the computer is programmed to play against THAT specific player through analyzing that player's past performances. The human, on the other hand, is not given the computer's games to analyze, they have to show up and play "blind", so to speak. This is a HUGE advantage in favor of the computer. This was the case in the Kasp vs. BB match and I am pretty sure it is still true today. Let the human have access to the computer's previous games, let the human study them and then we will have an even playing field.
i like how all their birthdates are posted too.
now if i'm ever stealing kasparov's identity, i have the requisit security answer...
heh heh heh.... doh!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Take an arbitrarily large corpus of writings sampled from the world wide web.
These will contain random mistakes and contradictions and as such are probably not very good at creating an intelligence that can not only compress "the universe", but create new intelligent data as well(without repeating itself too much).I also wasn't aware that his knowledge of physics and chemistry makes anyone better at picking up girls, i.e. at solving granular problems.
I predict that bzip -9 corpus.txt will be the winner of your contest, or more accurately, followed by strip bunzip2 && bunzip2 corpus.txt.bz2, where the pair of (bunzip2 corpus.txt.bz2) is the program.
Of course the real contest doesn't stop there. Because to compute the full information content, you need take into account the context provided by CPU and OS. You could also try to compress the bunzip2 binary, rename it to 'b', but all these savings will be minor compared to the already high compression rate of bunzip2.
At least that is how I am guessing it will turn out.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Seeing so many posts describing this as a "man versus machine" thing compels me to mention advanced chess, a new form of chess recently proposed by Garry Kasparov. The gist of it is that instead of humans and computers working either alone or against each other, a human player and a computer player team up. Personally, I think competitions like that are great for exploring how humans and computers can achieve a better symbiosis with each other, taking advantage of the strengths of each.
From wikipedia:
Advanced Chess is a relatively new form of chess, first introduced by grandmaster Garry Kasparov, with the objective of a human player and a computer chess program joining forces and competing as a team against other such pairs. Many Advanced Chess proponents have stressed that Advanced Chess has merits in:
* increasing the level of play to heights never before seen in chess;
* producing blunder-free games with the qualities and the beauty of both perfect tactical play and highly meaningful strategic plans;
* giving the viewing audience a remarkable insight into the thought processes of strong human chess players and strong chess computers, and the combination thereof.
I guess you can call it a win that you've been able to build a computer that can out calculate the human brain. Of course, then you have to calculate the combined manpower, resources and support it took to accomplish that feat.
Brute force calculations are a computers specialty. That's what they're primarily built to function as. Polygons. Spread sheets. Folding@home. All nothing but tools to perform brute force calculations. like chess. Calculate every permutaion and come up with the most efficient response. There is no real overriding strategy. No personal style of play. No attempt to fathom what your opponent is actually trying to do given his playing style. How many millions did it cost again? For something that can only outcalculate a human? 2/3rds of the time? Sometimes less?
Sure, I guess you can claim a win. But then, I have something that can out calculate me too.
I play Battlefield 2 on it.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
You are right that the computer is just running algorithms, but what if computer scientists write a bunch of algorithms for cooking? This spice combines with that spice in a pleasant way. This amount of meat requires this many minutes at this temperature, and so on. Now suppose that someone programs a computer to invest wisely in the stock market. This has been done already with success. Not grandmaster success, perhaps, but you see where it goes.
A computer can be extended with greater ease than a human. More memory, more CPUs, more disk, and faster of each is always nice. Even with the power that our computers currently have, we can certainly build algorithms for a great variety of things--all our effort, yes--but then we can load all of those algorithms into the memory space of a single computer and add an algorithm to recognize, "I want to play chess." as the time to apply chess algorithms, and "What would be a good recipe with fish and red peppers?" as the time to apply cooking algorithms.
And so it goes. At some point, with such a wealth of algorithms at the computers disposal and the ability to recognize when to apply which ones, you are getting very close to at least "apparent" sentience, at least in the limited sense that many of us understand it. This is not so unreasonable; it does not require much more than what we can do now. More developer time invested in algorithm development across a broader range of topics, and possibly memory/CPU power, though already, computers are rapidly approaching the best case estimates of our brains capacity (from a biological standpoint of number of neurons, rate of synaptic firing, degree of connectivity, etc.). This is not so different from raising a child. Years of teaching algorithms to interact with the environment and society in a beneficial way. We can even program computers to modify their own algorithms based on external simulus (as our children do).
I do not suggest that there are not obstacles. Certainly there are. But as you pointed out, the single biggest obstacle to making a silicon based sentient is likely not the materials*. It is our currently limited, but rapidly increasing understanding of our own sentient processes, that is the real limitation. In other words, the computer is not the limited one. We are.
The next 50 years should be tremendously interesting.
* And if materials were the issue, we could switch to other materials (already happening), or as our understanding of genetic engineering increases, we can switch to a biological substrate.
Is it a humiliation or triumph for mankind that it can build a machine that can defeat itself?
Human's should not feel humiliated at all. Indeed a great player like Kasparov can still embarrass the strongest chess program if he is given a little information on how it is programmed. If humans are expected to play these programs blind, and programmers have full access to the game records of the strongest grandmasters, is it really surprising that the humans lose? Kasparov has shown that with solid understanding of the opposing program and access to its playing record it is still possible for the human to compete. The fact that there has been counterattack on chess computers at all since Kasparov/Deep Blue is a tribute to the human mind!
an ill wind that blows no good
The strength of a computer program has nothing do to with the operating system!?!? IT is about the algorithm used to implement the chess engine. If there is any advantage to an OS it would simply be that one is FA?STER than another and hence able to comple up with it's best movve within the requisite time limit. Seduction Home Page
Since you said "at this point", point me a computer that can win a match against a Go Master. Yes, it's a game that can be mathematically explained, only it's orders of magnitude more complex than Chess. Computers suck at it. The calculation capacity of a computer will always be finite, so I predict there will always be a game, mathematically explanable, that Men will won. I'm not taking Hobbits into account here, mind you.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
> And, no, chess has not been PROVEN a draw. But please find me any expert
> who thinks chess is a forced win for white... If there were a forced win,
> several hundred years of chess (in current form) would have discovered it.
> Chess programs would have stumbled on it.
By the same logic, if chess is a a forced draw by black, several hundred years of chess (in current form) would have discovered it. Chess programs would have stumbled on it. Yadda, yadda yadda...
> If you disagree... find me any Master level player or higher that corroberates your view.
Find me any Master level player or higher that has solved chess.
That is, unless you accept "proof by concensus", in which case the Earth was the centre of the universe up until the 16th century and the speed of light was not constant until the 19th.
But i'm not going to explain it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I always wondered that.
In a man vs machine contest I would expect the machine to win. It's inevitable that as computers become more powerful humans will lose any games played against them. We shouldn't be upset over this. I'll bet I could design a hydraulic jack that could defeat the worlds strongest weight lifter too.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I think this is man vs. man. The comuter was programmed with chess technique and theory and game histories, that where developed by man. When a computer wins a grand master with pure calculations , that will mean something.
Art is a form of nonverbal idea and emotion communication. It is probably *very difficult* to build a machine that can produce good art, since the production of art that a human would consider good is simply a problem of understanding the human mind. When I want to see what feelings or ideas a painting that I'm creating evokes, I always have an ongoing human test subject -- me. Computers do not have this.
Creating art from a computer requires not just learning and processing capabilities similar to those of a human but the experience and similar emotions to those of a human, or accurate understanding of such mechanisms.
However, while such a problem is one of the final problems that AI would be able to solve in terms of simulating a human accurately (since the machine have a very accurate model of much of the human mind), there is certainly no reason to think that it is impossible; I see no insumountable barrier.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
This game makes no sense to me. Neither side had much checkmate pressure (only one check occured), both sides had two rooks, a bishop, and a queen. I've rarely seen such a balanced game. What the heck happened?
The tech educated speak, at least my job isn't in India.
You might be surpised in twenty or so years. Most human thinking is random thoughts tied to math equations and depth perception.
Example:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey wrod ni a snetence.
Life truly is patterns...Only patterns. Maybe.
For this reason, many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess.
Of course, in the history of human civilization in every case we've resolved simpler problems before more complex problems. Human success order is an absolute metric on problem complexity.
Take an arbitrarily large corpus of writings sampled from the world wide web. This corpus will establish the equivalent of an IQ test. Give the AIs the task of compressing this corpus into the smallest representation. This representation must be a program that, taking no outside inputs, produces the exact sample it compressed. The AIQ of an AI is simply the ratio of the size of the uncompressed writings to the size of the program that, when executed, produces the uncompressed writings. In other words, the AIQ is the compression ratio achieved by the AI on the AIQ test. The reason this works as an AI quality test is that compression requires predictive modeling. If you can predict what someone is going to say, you have modeled their mental processes and by inference have a superset of their mental faculties.
When a very intelligent human studies, understands, and internalizes the writings of others, he or she will indeed be able to model another person's mental process and roughly predict what they might say. But that's not the criteria in this proposed competition. For this competition, the AI is required to reproduce the exact sample that was compressed.
By this standard, I'm afraid that WinZip 9.0 will be judged the world's most intelligent AI.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I won't be impressed until a computer wins the World Series of Poker