Slashdot Mirror
10 Years After Big Blue Beat Garry Kasparov
Jamie found another MIT Technology review story, this time about Chess, Supercomputing, Garry Kasparov, and trying to make sense of just what exactly it all meant when a computer finally beat a grand master. An interesting piece that touches on what it means to play chess, the difference between humanity and machinery and how super computers don't care when they are losing. Worth your time.
I watch this event very closely at the time, and to me it didn't mean a thing. Here is why:
1. A Grandmaster Chess Player learns from his mistakes. If he played the IBM's Deep Blue 100 times in a row he would be beating it consistently at the end because of his ability to learn.
2. In between the 3 matches, IBM's Tech support when in and changed the macro/starting prams on the program's behavior and tailored them to Garry Kasparov and made associated adjustment.
3. IBM had a lot to gain by pulling this PR stunt
4. Garry Kasparov may be A Grandmaster Chess Player, but knew nothing about the IBM playing the "3 Card Monty" on him.
(ding my Karma down, i saw the whole event and bitched then)
People quickly forget (or delude themselves). Kasparov wasn't defeated by a machine, but by a team of experts using a machine. There's a huge difference.
Still, who cares? Chess is a solvable game, and brute force will eventually win. Not impressive at all, and there's nothing to do with intelligence.