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?

Jessie Owens Outpaced by Motorbike

[nagora]

Big deal.

TWW

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?

[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...