Slashdot Mirror
Computer Defeats Human At Japanese Chess
Calopteryx writes "A computer has beaten a human at shogi, otherwise known as Japanese chess, for the first time. As New Scientist reports, computers have beaten humans at western chess before, but that game is relatively simple, with only about 10^123 possible games existing that can be played out. Shogi is a *bit* more complex, offering about 10^224 possible games."
First time "a computer" has beaten "a human", eh?
I'm sure they mean: first time a computer has beaten a 1st dan (or whatever shogi ranks are called) grandmaster in an offical tournament setting...
Also, I don't think the theoretical number of games is very relevant. Paper-scissor-rocks has an infinite amount of possible games, ie 1 draw followed by a win, 2 draws ... inf draws. Much more relevant would be branching factor, difficulty of estimating positional strength, horizon problems, long term dependencies etc.
Computer Defeats Human At Japanese Chess
Human, my friend. Human.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
soooo irritating whenever a go player brings this up.
Go only wins through brute force.
go is 19x19
shogi is 9x9
chess is 8x8
If a game like shogi or chess was extended to 19x19 it would be vastly harder for a computer.
Computers playing Go on 9x9 have beaten 9th dan.
And if it was 8x8 it would be even easier.
What makes Go hard isn't anything particularly neat about the game.
Is just a boring brute force exercise.
I spent a summer once working for a professor who has spent his life trying to develop an AI for Go!
In particular I was compressing read-only hash tables of end states. He was basing his approach on the work of someone who had developed AI for checkers but I think it's obvious that Go is a little bit bigger problem.
(To be specific: http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/home/publications.html#3)
Ugh. What's with perpetuating this nonsense? A computer did not beat the top ranked Western chess player. Rather, a group of people _reprogrammed the computer after each match_ to beat the top ranked Western chess player.
TFA, it is annoyingly vague on an important point: What is the rank of the Japanese player that lost?
And as others have pointed out, let see a computer take down a top ranked (10th Dan) player at Go. The best a machine has done (I think) is winning against a 5th Dan.
Go is a simple game.
Mind numbingly simple, in fact.
It's just a LARGE game.
Chess has actual complex rules. It is a hard game.
Mind-numbingly hard, in fact.
It's just a relatively SMALL game.
If you bother to read the article:
"IBM say they have improved artificial intelligence enough that Watson will be able to challenge Jeopardy champions, and they'll put their boast to the test soon, says The New York Times. "
Do you realize what this means? Ken Jennings versus robots. They could make an entire new show out of this and I'd watch it religiously.
You're bored by the relatively fast advance of computer intelligence? Humans have for the first time in recorded history lost their title of "Best at Shogi" to computers (and orangutangs have presumably been bumped down to 3rd). That may not have any real-world significance, but in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't too long ago that computers couldn't beat us at math.
You're on a forum with a focus on computers, and you say that's boring? Jesus, what WOULD interest you? If it ran linux using a beowulf cluster? Simpsons quotes?
Well fine, I for one welcome our new shogi-playing computer overlords.
The actual accomplishment, not specifically stated until the FOURTH paragraph of the New Scientist article with the same terrible headline, is that it's the first time a computer has beaten a professional human player; in this case, Ichiyo Shimizu, the female shogi champion.
its totally winnable. you just have to get three in a row! (do you not even know the rules!?) :)
What makes Go hard isn't anything particularly neat about the game.
Incorrect. There are many things that make go difficult for a computer to play: positional evaluation is tough. The branching factor is huge (unlike Chess and similar games, the number of available moves in a given board configuration is very large, as a stone can be played virtually anywhere on the board). Life-and-death is difficult to calculate. There are interactions between local and global play...
Go's board size is certainly a factor, yes, but if it were the only one, computers should excel at 13x13 or 9x9 games, and yet they don't.
See Arimaa , a new game with a board and set similar to Chess *but* with specific rules made to be difficult for a computer to play, and easy for a child.
How many options do you have when it's your turn to play with chess ? The average branching factor in a game of Chess is about 35, whereas in Arimaa it is about 17281 !
This is why a computer which can search to a depth of eight turns for each player in chess, can only search about three turns deep for each player in Arimaa...
This game is the new challenge for IA, easy for a child, difficult for a computer. A average human player wins against best programs.
No thank you, I already ate.
Bow-ties are cool.
It is only a "bit" more complex than western chess; exactly one bit more complex. The exponent 123 can be stored in 7 bits. The exponent 224 requires 8, a full byte.
See what I did there? -puffs chest out proudly-
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.