This is a very interesting argument! Especially for a chess player like my self.
On the surface, it does seem that computers are playing slightly better then the humans. What with Deep Blue II having beaten a genius (or Freak as some are calling him here!) like Kasparov, and the fact that over the last few years top humans like Bareev and Kramnik haven't managed to beat a computer. It has been only draws. And it seems logical to say that "technology is improving every day, so why the hell wont computers be dominating humans in a few years to come?'. That's a pretty logical view. The computers will only become more powerful technologically. Fritz 8 (the program which held World Champion Vladimir Kramnik to a draw in a recent match). running on todays 2000Mhz, 256 RAM, PIV computers can only be challenged by the top 5-6 players in the world. So I am imaging when two yeras down the road we have a Pentium IX how powerful a fritz program will be.
But that is viewing thing purely from the point of a person who doesn't play chess at a club level and above. A person who is probably interested in computers, but not that much in chess. It is very easy for sucha person to say Comps are better then Humans.
I am a chess player with an ELO 2350, and when I look at these computer-human encounters from a CHESS viewpoint, I am inclined to say that the computers have still got a lot to learn. Here are the point I base my idea on:
1. There is a misconception amongst the general Public that Deep Blue Humiliated Kasparov. When you take a look at the games and the quality of play you begint o realise that Deep Blue was actuall Lucky. Kasparov was playing opening usually seen only AT THE BEGGINER LEVEL! His idea was to get deep blue out of the openings book, and it comes as a source of astonishment to serious chess players that kasparov could actually create serious winning chances with these weak opening systems. If he employed tham against ANY strong grandmaster he would be in serious trouble. In fact, Kasparov would have won the last Match against Deep BLue by a considerable margin if his his attention hadn't slacked towards the end of some of those games. Go look at the games yourself...the truth is there...and very accesible! Deep blue was simply lucky that Kasparov resigned in a DRAWN position in game 2, and made a stupid mistake in the last game which even a strong club player would have avoided!. Plus he came very close to winning games 3,4 & 5.
2. Deep Blue is weaker than the current crop of top chess programs. Take your fritz 8 and have it analyse kasparov-Deep Blue games. On many occasion it suggest better moves, and it has to be remembered that Kasparov was playing very much below his strength.
3. In the recent matches, especially Kasparov-Dee Juniour & Kramnik-Deep Fritz, which both ended in draws, the computer in no way showed it was on par with the humans. In the Kasparov match , deep juniour could have been losing 3-0 after three games if kasparov had nailed in the second game (where he chose a weaker move when deep juniours position was critical) and won a beautiful game three had he not blundered after having created a superb and brilliant attack. True in game 5 deep Junior created a sensation with a stunning bishop sacrifice in game 5, and everyone was going gaga about it. But what is not mentioned is the intuition Kasparov demonstrated in steering things to a draw and not deciding to test Deep Juniour in the murky tactical waers. Later, after many man and computer hours of analysis, it was discovered that Kasparov's judgment was correct in assuming the position was dangerous for him.
And in the Kramnik Match, the humans should have won once again. Kramnik also resigned in a drawn position (which he assumed was lost but overnight analysis proved the draw was there...a draw that is hard for the computer to understand, but within human understanding. He also blundered in another game which was drawn.
In both these matches humans should have won, and the co
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very interesting argument! Especially for a chess player like my self.
On the surface, it does seem that computers are playing slightly better then the humans. What with Deep Blue II having beaten a genius (or Freak as some are calling him here!) like Kasparov, and the fact that over the last few years top humans like Bareev and Kramnik haven't managed to beat a computer. It has been only draws. And it seems logical to say that "technology is improving every day, so why the hell wont computers be dominating humans in a few years to come?'. That's a pretty logical view. The computers will only become more powerful technologically. Fritz 8 (the program which held World Champion Vladimir Kramnik to a draw in a recent match). running on todays 2000Mhz, 256 RAM, PIV computers can only be challenged by the top 5-6 players in the world. So I am imaging when two yeras down the road we have a Pentium IX how powerful a fritz program will be.
But that is viewing thing purely from the point of a person who doesn't play chess at a club level and above. A person who is probably interested in computers, but not that much in chess. It is very easy for sucha person to say Comps are better then Humans.
I am a chess player with an ELO 2350, and when I look at these computer-human encounters from a CHESS viewpoint, I am inclined to say that the computers have still got a lot to learn. Here are the point I base my idea on:
1. There is a misconception amongst the general Public that Deep Blue Humiliated Kasparov. When you take a look at the games and the quality of play you begint o realise that Deep Blue was actuall Lucky. Kasparov was playing opening usually seen only AT THE BEGGINER LEVEL! His idea was to get deep blue out of the openings book, and it comes as a source of astonishment to serious chess players that kasparov could actually create serious winning chances with these weak opening systems. If he employed tham against ANY strong grandmaster he would be in serious trouble. In fact, Kasparov would have won the last Match against Deep BLue by a considerable margin if his his attention hadn't slacked towards the end of some of those games. Go look at the games yourself...the truth is there...and very accesible! Deep blue was simply lucky that Kasparov resigned in a DRAWN position in game 2, and made a stupid mistake in the last game which even a strong club player would have avoided!. Plus he came very close to winning games 3,4 & 5.
2. Deep Blue is weaker than the current crop of top chess programs. Take your fritz 8 and have it analyse kasparov-Deep Blue games. On many occasion it suggest better moves, and it has to be remembered that Kasparov was playing very much below his strength.
3. In the recent matches, especially Kasparov-Dee Juniour & Kramnik-Deep Fritz, which both ended in draws, the computer in no way showed it was on par with the humans. In the Kasparov match , deep juniour could have been losing 3-0 after three games if kasparov had nailed in the second game (where he chose a weaker move when deep juniours position was critical) and won a beautiful game three had he not blundered after having created a superb and brilliant attack. True in game 5 deep Junior created a sensation with a stunning bishop sacrifice in game 5, and everyone was going gaga about it. But what is not mentioned is the intuition Kasparov demonstrated in steering things to a draw and not deciding to test Deep Juniour in the murky tactical waers. Later, after many man and computer hours of analysis, it was discovered that Kasparov's judgment was correct in assuming the position was dangerous for him.
And in the Kramnik Match, the humans should have won once again. Kramnik also resigned in a drawn position (which he assumed was lost but overnight analysis proved the draw was there...a draw that is hard for the computer to understand, but within human understanding. He also blundered in another game which was drawn.
In both these matches humans should have won, and the co