good question. Think about it this way. We have IIS and we have Apache. Everyone knows which one is better and used more. So, many techies who know the better one found lots of jobs based on that skill. That is doing good to more humans as a whole. You cannot get an exact count of how many jobs were lost due to opensource or how many were gained. But, the net benefit to our civilization will definitely be positive due to open source movement.
Good point. If the software was smart enough to beat him, it should not have played 5....a6 in game 3. Yes, he would probably have come out winner but for the blunder 32...Rg7 in game 2.
The series ended in a draw essentialy because of one move. The move 5....a6 in game 3 by the computer is very interesting/controversial. A computer needs to be programmed to play to its strength, i.e open positions. This move reveals a fundamental flaw in the program. The computer chose this even though 6. c5 is among possible replies which forcibly closes the position. So, the programmers did not incorporate best algorithms to avoid closed positions. Instead of 5....a6 why did not the computer choose 5....Be7 which is more in line with convention and less likely to lead to a closed position?
But, whatever might be the case, it was a good show by Kasparov. He showed that computer software has a long way to go more than computer hardware to beat humans.
Not a good argument. Listen, people can't fly, but let's jump off the nearest 10-story building, and we'll learn how to fly on the way down. I mean, the advantages of being able to fly must outweigh any conceivable drawbacks, no?
I think its your argument which is more flawed. I said "start implementing without relying fully". So, if you want to try jumping off a building, do so with a parachute. If you are unable to fly launch the parachute in good time to save you. Once you learn how to fly, get rid of the parachute!
You are essentially arguing against something I did not say and thus wasting your time and my time.
Ofcourse people will be able to make fake prints or find ways to circumvent the biometric system. But, what system is fully flawless? The best thing to do would be to start using biometrics without 100% reliance on them till we are confident enough and experienced enough to stay ahead of the criminals in preventing misuse. Transition will be a pain for some time, but once the system has established itself, it will make our lives much easier.
The same program drew with Kramnik last year. It was quite a surprise as we would have expected Deep Fritz to trounce kramnik by now. But, the reason why it did not is discussed here by Ray kurzweil. Interestingly, the current game is using 4 processors against 8 used in kramnik game.
There is no game after that. It is a four game match. But, if he plays one after that, lets say, the computer wont play the same moves to lose again. It is smart enough to learn.
Yes he still plays humans and still beats most of them except Vladimir Kramnik. He is considered by all to be the strongest player in the world even though he lost to kramnik in last year in a world championship match.
He will get $200,000 if he wins this match and $150 k if he loses!
human events dont generally have such huge prizes.
Next game he plays black. He can repeat the strategy of playing a closed position, but cannot repeat the same game. And so far, all GMs who have beat computers have used this strategy of manuevering slowly in a closed position which confuses the computer.
They have a voice recognition system for getting you prepared with your call to an agent. This system is awesome. You can say stuff in your normal accent and the system recognizes it correctly with high success rate. I don't know if you can consider this system a 'robot' but hey, its automating routine tasks and its just not a mere program
I installed the advanced toolbar from google and turned on the client to do calculations in idle time. I observed system processes and saw that the client takes up to 97% of the CPU resources. Even mozilla becomes slow. Is anyone else facing similar issues?
Beating a computer is easy. I do it myself sometimes.
if you are an IM or a GM, yes you might beat some good programs, but otherwise, even ARASAN will beat you if you play a fair game and give the computer the same amount of time to think as you do.
Yes, chess is a finite problem space but that space is enormous, approximately 10^150 legal positions and that's more positions then atoms thought to exist in the known universe.
Not all legal positions will need to be evaluated. Legal positions could be as ridiculous as having eight queens for one side and none for the opponent. You don't have to calculate all these positions till checkmate to beat a GM. All you need to calculate is how to convert a small advantage from the end of opening lines to a +- or -+ position. That's it. The rest is a formality. This whole argument about the total number of possibilities being so great is nice for theoretical amusement, but in reality, it proves nothing.
All in all, I am not ashamed as a human being to lose to a computer and so I am more willing to accept the fact that they have surpassed us. I do not expect everyone to be like me, and they might not be ready as yet to accept the facts.
If Intuit was a monoploy, they would have stuck with their plan. But, since there good alternatives, they have to change their ways or give way. I wonder if such a backlash will work against WinXp activation. My guess is it won't due to the monopoly.
i heard all of Kasparov's rant. he is well known in chess circles for a big mouth. The point is that he lost. He will lose again today. Period.
He lost 3.5-2.5 mind you. So, even you say that computer was tailor made for him, and won by luck in the last game you have to realize that a computer made with same amount of money today would beat him easily.
It's not the hardware, it's the software. No one's repeated Deep Blue yet, so you can't "definitively" say that hardware wins. That was in 1996! That's 7 years ago! I'm sure you know how much computers changed since then. Yes Deep Junior might beat Deep blue. But, if you run Deep Junior strength program on a cluster, there is no doubt that kasparov, kramnik and anand sitting togehter can draw against it.
We did not learn "tremendous amounts" about computers weakspots. We just gave up the idea that we can beat them as Kasparov lost to a computer and that is engough to prove that computers have surpassed humands. Since you say you are a competetive chess player, you must have heard about the ranting of Kasparov that the program was tailored made for him and Kramnik or Anand would have beat it easily. Well, if we spend the same amount of money that we did on Deep Blue today, we can get a computer that will beat Kasparov 6-0 in a similar match.
I imagine the new breed of young GM's like Ponmariov, Grischuk and Malakhov probably find the prospect of beating stock Fritz/Junior/Hiarcs rather boring.
Its just your imagination.Did you see how Ponamariov won against Ivanchuk in the world championships?? He basically got uber lucky in lost positions as Invanchuk was in time trouble. Any decent computer in place of Ivanchuk would have finished Pono gracefully. A few extra CPUs is all takes it now to beat a human big time. But, you also need to write parallel processing software, and that takes invetment. But, since the point is already proved that computers can beat humans in a match(Kasparov Vs Deep Blue), nobdody wants to invest money again to prove the same point.
Sorry, but I don't think I'm wrong. You don't have to brute force a move tree to win. For a given opening you have to ananlyze all the previously playes games and come up with a couple of novelties. That will give you an advantage. From, there you can manuever to increase your advantage. If you come well prepared, you will put your opponent in time trouble as he will have to come up with right response for the moves on the fly. Today's computers are limited by software, yes, but the limitation is that the software is not parallel processing software. They run on dinky single processor or dual proessor machines. If you build a cluster of say 10 strongmachines, that's engough to crack any human. You don't have to calculate the whole tree from beginning to end. But, to calculate the limited number of moves, you need mroe processor power.
Throw better hardware at them, and they will not play better chess.
Why do you think Kasparov lost to deep blue? Because they used more powerful hardware!! That was in last decade. If you spend the same amount of money today, you will get a computer so powerful that humans can dream of a draw againt that machine.
You don't see a path to end. You have a set of openings lines that are analysed to a particular depth. If you play out the opening 10-20 moves right, you will get an equal position or slight advantage. (these openings are pusblished in books like modern chess openings). They are thoroughly analysed everyday and you have to be up to date to be a GM. If you make a mistake in the opening 10-20 moves, you already lost. This position is denoted as +- if its white who is winning and -+ if its black who is winning. The rest of the game from there is a formality. Most GMs resign if they are there. If you play out the opening right, you will get an equal position or a slight advantage, and most GM games proceed from here, after which there is manuevering to create a weakeness or exploit the already available advantage. Any weak move that is not positionally correct will result immediately in +- or -+. Nobody plays games till checkmate, atleast not GM level. Once +- or -+ os reached the game is over.
The power of computer comes in the openings. GMs do a lot of preparation and based on current theory memorize the first 10-20 moves assuming they are right. But, many times, there are 'novelties' played between 10th and 20th move and this comes as a surprise to your opponent. You have to find the correct response from there. Your memorized lines will be of no use now.
A powerful computer can come up with well analyzed novelties in dozens for each opening. They are already doing so. GMs prepare for their games using computer analyzed lines and novelties. So, there are not "Too many possibilities and too much branching".
computers have already surpassed humans. The matches that are being played these days are not against against the strongest computers. If you pit the strongest computer(the japanese supercomputer) against the strongest human(kasparov), the human has near zero chance of drawing , forget winning.
Slashdot Mirror
I object to the choice of words. Its 'my money'. SCO wants it does not mean it is 'SCO money'.
Sun is behind windows by such a huge margin? I thought solaris sets standards for stability.
good question. Think about it this way. We have IIS and we have Apache. Everyone knows which one is better and used more. So, many techies who know the better one found lots of jobs based on that skill. That is doing good to more humans as a whole. You cannot get an exact count of how many jobs were lost due to opensource or how many were gained. But, the net benefit to our civilization will definitely be positive due to open source movement.
Good point. If the software was smart enough to beat him, it should not have played 5....a6 in game 3. Yes, he would probably have come out winner but for the blunder 32...Rg7 in game 2.
THis is game 4 sorry! Game 3 is here [Event "X3D Match"] [Site "New York USA"] [Date "2003.11.16"] [Round "3"] [White "Kasparov,G"] [Black "X3D FRITZ"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2830"] [EventDate "2003.11.11"] [ECO "D45"] 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. e3 a6 6. c5 Nbd7 7. b4 a5 8. b5 e5 9. Qa4 Qc7 10. Ba3 e4 11. Nd2 Be7 12. b6 Qd8 13. h3 O-O 14. Nb3 Bd6 15. Rb1 Be7 16. Nxa5 Nb8 17. Bb4 Qd7 18. Rb2 Qe6 19. Qd1 Nfd7 20. a3 Qh6 21. Nb3 Bh4 22. Qd2 Nf6 23. Kd1 Be6 24. Kc1 Rd8 25. Rc2 Nbd7 26. Kb2 Nf8 27. a4 Ng6 28. a5 Ne7 29. a6 bxa6 30. Na5 Rdb8 31. g3 Bg5 32. Bg2 Qg6 33. Ka1 Kh8 34. Na2 Bd7 35. Bc3 Ne8 36. Nb4 Kg8 37. Rb1 Bc8 38. Ra2 Bh6 39. Bf1 Qe6 40. Qd1 Nf6 41. Qa4 Bb7 42. Nxb7 Rxb7 43. Nxa6 Qd7 44. Qc2 Kh8 45. Rb3 1-0
The series ended in a draw essentialy because of one move. The move 5. ...a6 in game 3 by the computer is very interesting/controversial. A computer needs to be programmed to play to its strength, i.e open positions. This move reveals a fundamental flaw in the program. The computer chose this even though 6. c5 is among possible replies which forcibly closes the position. So, the programmers did not incorporate best algorithms to avoid closed positions. Instead of 5....a6 why did not the computer choose 5....Be7 which is more in line with convention and less likely to lead to a closed position?
But, whatever might be the case, it was a good show by Kasparov. He showed that computer software has a long way to go more than computer hardware to beat humans.
Not a good argument. Listen, people can't fly, but let's jump off the nearest 10-story building, and we'll learn how to fly on the way down. I mean, the advantages of being able to fly must outweigh any conceivable drawbacks, no?
I think its your argument which is more flawed. I said "start implementing without relying fully". So, if you want to try jumping off a building, do so with a parachute. If you are unable to fly launch the parachute in good time to save you. Once you learn how to fly, get rid of the parachute!
You are essentially arguing against something I did not say and thus wasting your time and my time.
Ofcourse people will be able to make fake prints or find ways to circumvent the biometric system. But, what system is fully flawless? The best thing to do would be to start using biometrics without 100% reliance on them till we are confident enough and experienced enough to stay ahead of the criminals in preventing misuse. Transition will be a pain for some time, but once the system has established itself, it will make our lives much easier.
The same program drew with Kramnik last year. It was quite a surprise as we would have expected Deep Fritz to trounce kramnik by now. But, the reason why it did not is discussed here by Ray kurzweil.
Interestingly, the current game is using 4 processors against 8 used in kramnik game.
There is no game after that. It is a four game match. But, if he plays one after that, lets say, the computer wont play the same moves to lose again. It is smart enough to learn.
Yes he still plays humans and still beats most of them except Vladimir Kramnik. He is considered by all to be the strongest player in the world even though he lost to kramnik in last year in a world championship match.
He will get $200,000 if he wins this match and $150 k if he loses!
human events dont generally have such huge prizes.
Next game he plays black. He can repeat the strategy of playing a closed position, but cannot repeat the same game. And so far, all GMs who have beat computers have used this strategy of manuevering slowly in a closed position which confuses the computer.
They have a voice recognition system for getting you prepared with your call to an agent. This system is awesome. You can say stuff in your normal accent and the system recognizes it correctly with high success rate. I don't know if you can consider this system a 'robot' but hey, its automating routine tasks and its just not a mere program
they had it made in India to save money. That explains everything that happens in the movie.
Is this mere coincidence or something deliberate by the directors? Does he use guns in Revolutions?
I installed the advanced toolbar from google and turned on the client to do calculations in idle time. I observed system processes and saw that the client takes up to 97% of the CPU resources. Even mozilla becomes slow. Is anyone else facing similar issues?
Your misinformed.
Do you really think so?
Beating a computer is easy. I do it myself sometimes.
if you are an IM or a GM, yes you might beat some good programs, but otherwise, even ARASAN will beat you if you play a fair game and give the computer the same amount of time to think as you do.
Yes, chess is a finite problem space but that space is enormous, approximately 10^150 legal positions and that's more positions then atoms thought to exist in the known universe.
Not all legal positions will need to be evaluated. Legal positions could be as ridiculous as having eight queens for one side and none for the opponent. You don't have to calculate all these positions till checkmate to beat a GM. All you need to calculate is how to convert a small advantage from the end of opening lines to a +- or -+ position. That's it. The rest is a formality. This whole argument about the total number of possibilities being so great is nice for theoretical amusement, but in reality, it proves nothing.
All in all, I am not ashamed as a human being to lose to a computer and so I am more willing to accept the fact that they have surpassed us. I do not expect everyone to be like me, and they might not be ready as yet to accept the facts.
Could not find price on the discussion board. Anybody?
If Intuit was a monoploy, they would have stuck with their plan. But, since there good alternatives, they have to change their ways or give way. I wonder if such a backlash will work against WinXp activation. My guess is it won't due to the monopoly.
Err.. correction that was in 1997. So only 6 years ago not 7, but far enough in past.
i heard all of Kasparov's rant. he is well known in chess circles for a big mouth. The point is that he lost. He will lose again today. Period.
He lost 3.5-2.5 mind you. So, even you say that computer was tailor made for him, and won by luck in the last game you have to realize that a computer made with same amount of money today would beat him easily.
It's not the hardware, it's the software. No one's repeated Deep Blue yet, so you can't "definitively" say that hardware wins.
That was in 1996! That's 7 years ago! I'm sure you know how much computers changed since then. Yes Deep Junior might beat Deep blue. But, if you run Deep Junior strength program on a cluster, there is no doubt that kasparov, kramnik and anand sitting togehter can draw against it.
We did not learn "tremendous amounts" about computers weakspots. We just gave up the idea that we can beat them as Kasparov lost to a computer and that is engough to prove that computers have surpassed humands. Since you say you are a competetive chess player, you must have heard about the ranting of Kasparov that the program was tailored made for him and Kramnik or Anand would have beat it easily. Well, if we spend the same amount of money that we did on Deep Blue today, we can get a computer that will beat Kasparov 6-0 in a similar match.
I imagine the new breed of young GM's like Ponmariov, Grischuk and Malakhov probably find the prospect of beating stock Fritz/Junior/Hiarcs rather boring.
Its just your imagination.Did you see how Ponamariov won against Ivanchuk in the world championships?? He basically got uber lucky in lost positions as Invanchuk was in time trouble. Any decent computer in place of Ivanchuk would have finished Pono gracefully. A few extra CPUs is all takes it now to beat a human big time. But, you also need to write parallel processing software, and that takes invetment. But, since the point is already proved that computers can beat humans in a match(Kasparov Vs Deep Blue), nobdody wants to invest money again to prove the same point.
Sorry, but I don't think I'm wrong. You don't have to brute force a move tree to win. For a given opening you have to ananlyze all the previously playes games and come up with a couple of novelties. That will give you an advantage. From, there you can manuever to increase your advantage. If you come well prepared, you will put your opponent in time trouble as he will have to come up with right response for the moves on the fly. Today's computers are limited by software, yes, but the limitation is that the software is not parallel processing software. They run on dinky single processor or dual proessor machines. If you build a cluster of say 10 strongmachines, that's engough to crack any human. You don't have to calculate the whole tree from beginning to end. But, to calculate the limited number of moves, you need mroe processor power.
Throw better hardware at them, and they will not play better chess.
Why do you think Kasparov lost to deep blue? Because they used more powerful hardware!! That was in last decade. If you spend the same amount of money today, you will get a computer so powerful that humans can dream of a draw againt that machine.
You don't see a path to end. You have a set of openings lines that are analysed to a particular depth. If you play out the opening 10-20 moves right, you will get an equal position or slight advantage. (these openings are pusblished in books like modern chess openings). They are thoroughly analysed everyday and you have to be up to date to be a GM. If you make a mistake in the opening 10-20 moves, you already lost. This position is denoted as +- if its white who is winning and -+ if its black who is winning. The rest of the game from there is a formality. Most GMs resign if they are there. If you play out the opening right, you will get an equal position or a slight advantage, and most GM games proceed from here, after which there is manuevering to create a weakeness or exploit the already available advantage. Any weak move that is not positionally correct will result immediately in +- or -+. Nobody plays games till checkmate, atleast not GM level. Once +- or -+ os reached the game is over.
The power of computer comes in the openings. GMs do a lot of preparation and based on current theory memorize the first 10-20 moves assuming they are right. But, many times, there are 'novelties' played between 10th and 20th move and this comes as a surprise to your opponent. You have to find the correct response from there. Your memorized lines will be of no use now.
A powerful computer can come up with well analyzed novelties in dozens for each opening. They are already doing so. GMs prepare for their games using computer analyzed lines and novelties. So, there are not "Too many possibilities and too much branching".
computers have already surpassed humans. The matches that are being played these days are not against against the strongest computers. If you pit the strongest computer(the japanese supercomputer) against the strongest human(kasparov), the human has near zero chance of drawing , forget winning.