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'."

Comments

I dont get it...

[__aaxwdb6741]

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..

[btgreat]

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.

Jessie Owens Outpaced by Motorbike

[nagora]

Big deal.

TWW

Re:Jessie Owens Outpaced by Motorbike

[m50d]

There were always animals who could outpace us running. We never met anything else that could beat us at chess.

werke

[mnemonic_]

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.

Linux?

[anthony_dipierro]

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.

Re:"we" won?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a lever is a machine that can lift more than I can unassisted.
There is no shame in being 'defeated' by a machine.

The computer did it?

[glwtta]

Here's the thing, all the computer "did" was run electricity through a circuit - an electric heater does the same thing.

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.

Re:"we" won?

[NitsujTPU]

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.

Re:"we" won?

[MyLongNickName]

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...