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'."
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?
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"
I really wish Slashcode would include moderator ratings for "Trite", "Cliche", "Overused", "Never was funny, and "No, really, it WAS NEVER FUNNY!"
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.
Even a lever is a machine that can lift more than I can unassisted.
There is no shame in being 'defeated' by a machine.
This may be a theoritical truth (not that I'm conceding that), but it is certainly not a practical truth.
Example:
The number of possibly game states in the Go is over 10^150. Many orders of mangnitude higher than the number of atoms in the universe. The best Go playing computer is ranked around 5k or so, which would make it a relatively strong amateur.
Question:
Can you name something that you believe can not be explained mathematically? Do you have evidence for this? If not, then your first sentance could be accurately paraphrased as "Personally, I believe that computers, at this point, can beat mankind in anything."
Justin Dubs
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
Yes, there are programs called automated theorem provers that work with, ironically enough, mathematical theorems.
It can be mathematically explained just as much as chess can be.
God gave us something which seperates us from all other things on earth.
A bad sense of spelling?
If all a computer can be is logic, I wonder if anyone has found a way to force a shutdown loop, to do something so illogical the computer can not continue.
Okay, you just don't know what you're talking about. The whole "unsolvalble geometric figure" thing doesn't exactly work, unless you've got a buggy program. Neither does solitaire. Giving a "sleep" command does seem to work for most computers, though, especially for Microsoft operating systems.
Given enough time, machines will be better than us at EVERYTHING.
Except at assigning purpose. This is one thing that cannot be expressed mathematically.
And you also do not understand chess. Chess is a drawn game by default. A "perfect" player could not beat you unless you made a mistake. There are ways to play the game that focus on minimizing risk as opposed to all out win.
Take a look at players like Petrosian (world champion in mid 60's as I recall). His style was python-like. He would see to suffocate you. Then, after tying you down, would systematically destroy you. Petrosian would be much better at playing supercomputers that Kasparov every was. His style could not be brute forced with today's supercomputers... too many plies to calculate... too many fruitless branches.
But, I do agree, in a few more decades humans will never be able to score a victory against the best computers.
But who cares? It is a linear game. I do not define my worth as a human being cased on linear criteria. Kinda gets back to the "purpose" thing.
Of course, if you are a Nihilist...
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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"?
There is a definite correlation between skill at chess and interest in playing chess. That's pretty much it.
everybody knows a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of brains.
What? They both weigh a pound! How can muscle be heavier?
If all a computer can be is logic, I wonder if anyone has found a way to force a shutdown loop, to do something so illogical the computer can not continue.
This isn't Star Trek. What you suggest is impossible because the chess computer is not trying to guess what the other person is doing or interpret the moves on the board in any other way. It is simply solving a heuristic function based on the positions of the pieces on the board, and the output of that function is the computer's next move.
Science is only a bunch of theories.
A theory is a logical explanation of observable facts that serves to explain the world around us. Scientists pick the theories that best explain the facts we've observed so far, and when facts that contradict those theories arise, they will refine them or perhaps come up with all new theories that will once again adequately explain our observations.
What is your process?
We are not apes. We are humans.
From what we've observed so far, the brain is made up of a lot of very small units that take inputs, perform various computations, and fire outputs based on those computations. When you link billions of them together in very complex ways (and allow them to develop new links over time) you get human thought and learning.
What makes you think that an ape's brain is made up of significantly different material?
Today, our computers aren't powerful enough to simulate billions of these units with massively complex interactions. However, it isn't inconceivable that computers in the future could simulate such massive, complex systems, with all the relevant growth conditions. Therefore it isn't inconceivable that we could, in the future, build a computer that learns (provided we learn what exactly goes on within the neurons, and how they fit together).
What are your arguments against this?
I've come for the woman, and your head.
"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."
If only one sample is compressed and decompressed, where's the predictive requirement of that? I'm not sure that superior compression could not be achieved purely mathematically, by statistical analysis, rather than by "predictive" means.
If you gave a first sample, a compression/decompression program was produced from that, then you gave a 2nd, entirely different sample in the same natural language, wouldn't the compression ratio achieved for that using the same program be a much better indicator of real insight?