Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chess: Man vs. Machine Debate Continues

Hemos posted more than 12 years ago | from the the-battle-rages-on dept.

News 295

Frederic Friedel sent in an interesting submission. It's an interview with the current world's chess champion, Vladimir Kramnik, in which they talk about the upcoming year in chess competitions, but also get into [Deep Blue] and where computer chess playing is versus several years ago, with a comparison between Deep Blue and Fritz. If you want more info, check out Chessbase for additional news.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1st move (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421276)

Prawn to King 4.

Re:1st move (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421374)

Prawn to King 6

Re:1st move (0, Redundant)

thedbp (443047) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421394)

What the hell are you doing playing chess with fish?!?!?! That must be a big chessboard if you can play with a prawn on the board.

Re:1st move (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421506)

Prawns are not fish, you dolt.

2nd move (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421509)

Porn to Queen's 3

brain (1, Informative)

Jacer (574383) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421279)

if the human brain could be used to it's full potential, it'd be not contest i wonder if a divine being decided we should underclock....without any arctic silver between cells, maybe our heads would blow up

Re:brain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421500)

You are a fucking moron. Maybe you should have stayed in school and learned about grammar and the human brain, since you clearly know nothing about either.

Re:brain (1)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421537)

If you focus too much of your brain on something, people will say you have ADHD.

Schools want a well rounded brain with little bits of your attention everywhere, and they program you for this by giving junk courses which you dont really need.

Computers dont work this way, when a computer is computing something, it doesnt focus on anything else.

Humans are capable of doing this, you do this when you sleep, if you do it when you are awake its called day dreaming, kids do it all the time and get put on pills like ritalin to make them stop..

banned! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421293)

you fucking assmonkies!

Chess Champion (2, Funny)

saveth (416302) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421294)

When do I get my turn at being the world's best chess player? :(

Re:Chess Champion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421533)

As soon as you can answer this question:
What's 7 + purple?

Neatness and originality in your answers count.

New Turing Tests (5, Interesting)

KFury (19522) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421298)

Forget conversational ability. I'd like to see a Chess Turing Test, where grandmasters go up against an unknown opponent, and have to ascertain whether they're playing a computer or a machine.

Re:New Turing Tests (2)

KFury (19522) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421305)

Err, a computer or a human, that is... I didn't mean to disparage grandmasters...

Re:New Turing Tests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421334)

Forget conversational ability. I'd like to see a Chess Turing Test, where grandmasters go up against an unknown opponent, and have to ascertain whether they're playing a computer or a machine.

*Ahhem!*...... Why?

I can top that: Let's do that with Tic-Tac-Toe!!

Re:New Turing Tests (1)

Kwikymart (90332) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421370)

Nah, rock-paper-scissors would be far better than stinky old tic-tac-toe. Or what might be better is "Think of a number between 1 and 10"... now thats what I would call a Turing test

Re:New Turing Tests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421406)

Off topic, but I think a better turing test is one where the computer has to convince us that it is intelligent, when we know its a computer. That way no one can say they were tricked in to thinking the computer was inteligent.
-James

Re:New Turing Tests (2)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421458)

But to prevent the unfair treatment of intelligent computers by prjudiced testers (who could simply vote "not intelligent" on all tests), there would have to be a small chance that the tested is actually humn - and if you can't tell ...

Re:New Turing Tests (2, Insightful)

metalogic (445469) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421416)

This doesn't make much sense.



It's long been observed in AI circle that things that are seemingly difficult for human actually are quite easy for computer, and vice versa. E.g., it is relatively easy to write program to solve sophisticated equations, playing chess, etc, which usually are considered hard, and require long period of training for human to carry out adequately. Things that are easy for human, such as recognizing faces and doing common sense reasoning, are what present the most problem for AI researchers.



Turing test allows opportunity to test for the latter, greater challenge; your suggested test doesn't.


Re:New Turing Tests (4, Interesting)

marcelk (224477) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421426)

> Forget conversational ability. I'd like to see a Chess Turing Test, where grandmasters go up against an unknown opponent, and have to ascertain whether they're playing a computer or a machine.

Actually, the computers have already demonstrated greater skill in judging chess Turing tests: they are better than grandmaster at deciding if an unknown player is human or not.

Re:New Turing Tests (2)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421429)

Well it'd be pretty easy to see whether it's a computer or a person (I assume you didn't mean machine). Just knock your king over on your first move. A person woud see it and say "ha you resigned!" - a computer would just say "illegal move - try again"

Grandmasters can tell computers and humans apart (5, Insightful)

iskander (9699) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421482)

Grandmasters can in fact tell whether their oponent is a computer, sometimes even after playing just a single game, and certainly by the end of a match. In fact, I believe Kasparov lost to Deep Blue precisely because he counted on the computeresque behavior of his opponent when designing his strategy. If you read the article, you will learn that Kramnik can tell computer programs apart by their style, and that he thinks Fritz is becoming more human-like in its behavior, from which I infer that he can still identify its style as computeresque on some level.

So, the test you propose has already been carried out, and the machines "failed". This may have more to do with the fact that the people who write chess playing programs are more concerned with the programs' ability to win than they are with the programs' ability to emulate the playing style of humans. If humans could calculate better [Note: "calculate" has a precise technical meaning in chess] or chess playing computer programs were slower and considerably more stateful, their respective styles might be much more similar and your test, therefore, be met.

My own belief is that the ability to play chess well, let alone the ability to play chess in the style of a particular grandmaster, is not an accurate or even adequate measure of intelligence, so I will not be particularly hurt when the day comes on which computers at last surpass our chess playing skills, just as they have surpassed our (numerical) computational skills.

Re:Grandmasters can tell computers and humans apar (3, Insightful)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421529)

Even I can tell.

by the style of play, humans usually have clear strategies, computers dont, they usually just tactically try to beat you, using lots of tricks and traps, they dont have REAL plans so its easy to know its a computer if the computers every move is generic.

Speak & Spell (3, Funny)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421306)

My Speak & Spell (you remember ET?) plays better chess then any of those guys

Oh, Hemos... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421307)

I'm not usually one to point out Hemos' mistakes, but this one cracks me up.

It's an interview with the current world's chess champion

The "world's current chess champion" would make sense. The "current world's chess champion" implies that our stay on Earth is temporary, but once we get to, say, Alpha Centauri, we can finally have a new chess champion.

Re:Oh, Hemos... (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421368)

Depends. If his title is 'world chess champion', then it is correct, isn't it? Considering there are several world champions in chess (each one claiming he's the real one), it makes sense to make the distinction.

--
GCP

computers and Grand Masters (3, Interesting)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421311)

If you remember - for a long time no professional chess player would play a computer. I'm curious as to what the reasoning was behind this. Maybe they thought it's best to concentrate on learning how people play the game and not how a computer plays.

Re:computers and Grand Masters (2)

Wells2k (107114) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421326)

If you remember - for a long time no professional chess player would play a computer. I'm curious as to what the reasoning was behind this. Maybe they thought it's best to concentrate on learning how people play the game and not how a computer plays.

Just throwing out an idea here, but perhaps chess masters rely not only on their minds to play a good game, but also on the body language and expressions that their opponent displays. With a computer, this kind of data transmission is removed, and all the chess master has to rely on is his/her own intellect.

Re:computers and Grand Masters (2)

Misha (21355) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421347)

the reasoning was that while studying a game with a really strong opponent, they would be able to fix and tune up their program. it is difficult to analyze a computer's game from the grandmaster's point of view unless a grandmaster is involved somehow. also, top players usually give a post-mortem after the game, explaining what happened.

naturally, the reasoning behind the grandmasters' actions was to limit the future advances of computers. a strategic move, i suppose, but enough programs still have gotten really good.

Re:computers and Grand Masters (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421375)

>If you remember - for a long time no professional chess player would play a computer.

This is just false...there have always been human-computer matches.

The lack of matches with world champions can be simply explained by the fact that those world champions charge much more for such a match than most chessprogrammers can afford.

--
GCP

Re:computers and Grand Masters (2)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421422)

Sorry if I confused you - by professional chess player I meant someone who plays chess for a living and is a grand master.

Re:computers and Grand Masters (2)

SkulkCU (137480) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421543)


The worlds chanmpions have been playing machines ever since The Turk. (about 1770)

Of course, it turns out that one of the operators of the Turk was widely regarded as one of the best two players in Paris, so the match results are hardly stunning. Despite the indignation of so many about a 'machine' playing chess, many world-class players and world leaders did play The Turk, and lost quite decisively.

Kramnik's Nightmare... (1)

smartipants (561845) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421312)

Blue Gene [ibm.com] . For protein folding eh... yeah right ;>

Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon [stumbleupon.com]

text (-1, Flamebait)

namtog (247864) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421313)

An interview with world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik on Man vs Machine and Classical World Championships
This interview was conducted on Sunday, April 7th. World chess champion Vladimir Kramnik (Russia), who wrested the title from Garry Kasparov in December 2000, is scheduled to play the strongest chess program currently available in a spectacular event. This will take place in Bahrain in October this year. In July there will be a qualification tournament in Dortmund, Germany, to find a challenger for Kramnik in next year's world championship match. Kramnik speaks out on both these subjects.

Deep Blue "It was a great shock!"
ChessBase: Man versus Machine Matches in chess get extraordinary public attention. What do you think is the reason for this?

Vladimir Kramnik: Our brains have the power to stand up to the machines. It is a good story when the two fight for supremacy in a highly intellectual area. The player and the computer are both obeying the same rules. So you can compare the results. The chess grandmaster is fighting against the best software on a brutally fast machine. He stands there alone in a fight against the most unbelievable technical development in history. It is also the battle between creativity and monstrous calculating power. The public finds this fascinating, and so do I.

ChessBase: Kramnik vs Fritz in Bahrain is seen as the revenge match of Kasparov vs Deep Blue. Are you avenging the defeat of Kasparov in 1997?

Kramnik: Naturally the match has the character of a revenge. After all the world champion is facing the strongest chess program. If I too should lose then the people will believe that chess computers are really superior to human beings. Top players are very ambitious, it is also a matter of honour. Believe me, to lose to a computer is twice as painful as losing to a colleague.

ChessBase: How does the playing strength of Fritz7 today compare with that of Deep Blue in 1997?

Kramnik: I spent some time last summer studying Fritz because the match was originally supposed to take place in October 2001 and had to be postponed because of September 11. I was testing Fritz on a Notebook with a 600 MHz processor. I let Fritz replay the games of Deep Blue in 1997. It was a great shock! In almost every position Fritz was suggesting objectively better variations. The program is clearly stronger than Deep Blue, whatever the hardware. The developers have done some excellent work in the past years. The special version that will run on eight processors in Bahrain I think will definitely be over 2800 in its Elo performance. Everybody can imagine what a difficult job it will be for me. In order to have chances to win I have to be mentally and physically in top shape.

Kasparov vs Deep Blue, New York 1997

ChessBase: Kasparov has criticized the playing conditions and circumstances surrounding the match of 1997. Did you take his experiences into account for Bahrain?

Kramnik: I do not know enough about what exactly happened in New York to give you a precise answer. Definitely it was a mistake to play without any specific preparation against an opponent you know nothing about. That is why it is important that the player is able to spend some time getting used to the playing style of the program. The computer team is also preparing for the human opponent.

As I said Deep Blue did not impress me that much. The fact that even a weaker program managed to beat Garry Kasparov tells us that the match in Bahrain will be a hard challenge for me.

"Fritz plays somehow like... a human"
ChessBase: Can you feel different styles in different chess programs and if yes, how would you describe the style of Fritz?

Kramnik: Yes, I can, and even if it sounds ridiculous I have to say, Fritz plays in many ways, how should I say it, like a human. At least when I compare it to other programs. Your program is the first on the computer rating lists. Okay, these lists compare the playing strengths of the programs among each other. But I think that Fritz will perform better than other programs against human beings, because of this "human" quality. This is what makes Fritz especially dangerous for me in Bahrain. A game like my game against Junior in Dortmund will not be possible against Fritz, I think.

ChessBase: Chess programs have clear defects in long-term strategic planning. This lead to the development of anti-computer chess, which can be quite successful with simple attacking plans. However, Robert Hübner said after his match against Fritz in Dortmund that it is not necessary to betray one's style when facing the machine. Also Boris Gulko recently reached promising positions against top programs with his own repertoire. What is your opinion on this?

Kramnik: You cannot compare Fritz 6 with Fritz 7 at all, there is a big difference, a clear advance. And the Bahrain version will be even stronger and it will understand the strategic aspects even better. That is why I can clarify my strategic plan only after getting the last version of the program. But one thing is already completely clear: There are not many grandmasters left who would have a chance in such a match.

ChessBase: What do you think is the greatest contribution of computers to the world of chess?

Kramnik: Clever question, which I have to answer positively. Okay, computers have surely helped to make chess more popular. Many people have found their way to chess through the computer. I know many people who are quite attached to their favourite program.

ChessBase: The path to achieve super grandmaster strength is long and tough and only the most talented players succeed in getting there. Top grandmasters enjoy social prestige, not only in the chess scene. Does it have any impact on human esteem that machines now compete on this level?

Kramnik: I really don't think so. Maybe in the subjective view of an active grandmaster there is such a feeling. It is really painful to lose to a computer, as I said already. But the players do not lose social prestige, in fact the opposite is true. It is a battle on a completely different level, and the public understand this.

ChessBase: Do you think that chess might be promoted by the ability to play against people on the Internet?

Kramnik: There is only one answer to this question: chess profits more than any other activity from the Internet. I am convinced that many children and young people are finding their way to chess like this. Many schools all over the world are becoming active on the Internet and recognise the important role of chess in learning and education. Even business is recognising this. I can feel that chess is becoming more popular, and we will all profit from this. But I must advise every player to also go to a chess tournament or to a chess club. The Internet can never replace a game face-to-face between two people. And also not the atmosphere of a well-presented chess event.

Chess politics and the world championship
ChessBase: An exclusive interview with you is currently impossible without touching on chess politics and the world championship. Is that okay?

Kramnik: Sure, no problem.

ChessBase: The candidates' tournament in Dortmund has been criticized. Do you think that the winner will really be a worthy challenger?

Kramnik: Of course, he will be a worthy challenger. He will have to play 14 games with classical time controls, and also maybe play tiebreak games. Anyone who finishes this tournament as the winner has definitely earned the right to play a match for the classical world chess championship. By the way I do not agree at all with the criticism, which is being mainly done by Garry Kasparov. I am receiving a lot of approval and support, also in the chess world.

ChessBase: Since you mention the name of Kasparov, is it possible to have a world championship without the participation of the top player in the world rankings?

Kramnik: Definitely yes. Kasparov's arguments are not logical. Garry has held the title for 15 years. During this time a world championship without his participation was impossible. After my victory in London I have taken his place. I have proposed some improvements and am trying to learn from the past mistakes. Dortmund is a step in the right direction.

ChessBase: Do you understand Kasparov's refusal to play in Dortmund?

Kramnik: I understand that for him to take part in a candidates' tournament is a risk. But I do not understand his decision not to play. Before our title match in London Garry signed the contract where he agreed to play in a candidates tournament in the case of losing the title. Later he got the legal right not to carry out these obligations, and so he does. There is nothing wrong with it from the legal point of view, but it was surprising to see such a drastic change in his position under new circumstances. Still I believe it is a mistake.

Of course, in a tournament you can never be completely sure, but the format of Dortmund would give Garry ideal chances. His reasons for not playing will not satisfy the public. But that is not my problem. His demands for an immediate rematch are contradicting what he said and did for many years. And he was right. It's clear: if you only arrange matches between the two same players all the time it is absurd and boring. The world championships between Kasparov and Karpov made it impossible for many years for other players to participate. Many people were bored, and people may be forgetting this. This is not usual in any other sport.

ChessBase: But Kasparov gave you the chance to play a world championship match against him because you were number two in the world.

Kramnik: That is not a good argument. He needed an opponent, I did not ask for the match. They ignored Shirov who had earned the right to play and first asked Anand, who did not agree to play. Then they asked me. Nobody really expected me to win this match, to beat Kasparov. Now things have changed.

BGN world championship Kramnik-Kasparov, London 2001.

ChessBase: You have found a new partner in the Einstein Group in London.

Kramnik: Yes, it is a very professional multi-media company and I have made long-term commitments to them. They have all the parts which are very important for international sporting events. Event management, marketing, the Internet. And they have their own TV channel with international distribution. Einstein wants to use chess to promote learning and education for children and youth. I think this is very important, it is very close to my feelings. I had other offers, but Einstein is an ideal partner for chess. That was the main reason for my decision.

"Chess is much more than a sport"
ChessBase: What is the role of FIDE in your plans?

Kramnik: The initiatives of FIDE with regard to the Grand Prix tournaments is in principle a positive movement. It is a great platform for rapid chess. Some details I do not like, for example the dress code for the players. That is a ridiculous action, especially because it is a kind of uniform. I only know certain team sports where they wear uniforms. But this is not a team event. I have never seen uniforms in golf, boxing, table tennis or badminton. Every individual athlete or sports competitor has the right to market himself. This is also true in chess. Also the players lose part of their individuality. This is a very important aspect. Another important point is that the schedules should be properly coordinated so that they respect the rights of traditional tournaments. If they don't do this then the traditional tournaments and the Grand Prix will be damaged. Probably we must give the organization a little time to get their act together.

ChessBase: Thanks. But my question was actually directed at the FIDE world championship. Do you accept Ruslan Ponomariov as world chess champion?

Kramnik: I have no trouble accepting him as the title holder of a knockout competition with the character of a high-class Grand Prix. In this sense I have no problem to accept the title of FIDE world champion for him. Ponomariov made a great performance in Moscow, but he is definitely not the World Chess Champion in the classical sense. No way. There are very few players in the world who could achieve my title. Maybe Ponomariov would be able to do so, but he must prove that. In the FIDE format there were 20 or 30 players who would have been able to win this tournament. The system does not consider the playing strength of the individual players sufficiently. This was made worse by the shortened time controls.

ChessBase: Will FIDE be interested in a reunification match?

Kramnik: Perhaps you should ask FIDE this question. In my opinion a reunification match for the world championship is currently purely hypothetical. I am in favour of classical chess. I want to keep the tradition and beauty of the game. Naturally it is possible to present chess in many different formats, and to market it in many different ways. I do not object to this. But chess is much more than only a sport. In order to create a work of art a player needs time. And that is only possible in the classical time controls. If you remove the beauty and deepness of chess it becomes a circus act. This makes it less attractive and less valuable for sponsors. The quality of the games in Moscow were correctly criticized. Sometimes it was unbearable. In chess not only the result counts, especially when it is a world championship. The great world championship matches in classical chess always had the biggest prizes and the biggest audiences. They did a lot for the development of the game. FIDE has simply abandoned this area of chess.

ChessBase: How do you imagine the future of chess?

Kramnik: In 2003 I will defend my title against the winner of the candidates' tournament in Dortmund. After that Einstein is planning a two-year cycle for the title fight, even if I lose my title defence. As far as I know they will study the Dortmund Candidates' Tournament very carefully and also consult a committee of respected and experienced grandmasters.

"Kasparov does not play the key role"
ChessBase: In this connection what do you think of the proposals of Yasser Seirawan?

Kramnik: I admire Yasser a lot. His proposals show a lot of idealism. He is basically talking about reunification and proposes a way to do it. But in my opinion he is working from wrong assumptions. If FIDE is not prepared to accept a world championship cycle in the classical sense and to start serious negotiations with Einstein and myself, the reunification will not work. But there are currently no signs that FIDE will change its policy. There was even no reaction to Seirawan's proposal. Kasparov does not play the key role in this matter.

ChessBase: Seirawan says that the Dortmund Candidates' is a waste of time.

Kramnik: The opposite is correct! We would waste much more time if there was no candidates' tournament. It is the beginning of a new cycle which we have been waiting for now for seven years. In Dortmund seven respected top grandmasters and a German player are competing. Over the past two or three years these players have earned the right to play a role in the classical world championship. Yes, I know there is criticism because Kasparov is not playing. But how would you like it if the alternative was that nothing would happen just because Garry is not participating? I believe that it is time to correct what has been damaged during the 90ties. Every top player must know that he has the chance to fight for the world title. If somebody refuses we have to respect this, but it is then his own choice.

With regard to the candidates: just take a look at some of the results in classical tournaments in the past months. You will see that the Dortmund players are fully qualified to play for the challenger to the world championship. Topalov won Dortmund in Summer 2001. This was a category 21 tournament. Bareev won Wijk aan Zee and Gelfand won Cannes together with Topalov. Adams, Shirov, Morozevich and Leko have had great results in classical tournaments in the last two years. They have all earned the right to fight for the World Championship title. Christopher Lutz got a special place as a German player. That is okay, he is German champion and the top player in the German ratings list. I think that a wildcard for the country in which the tournament is held is acceptable. It will also motivate some countries to organize such events and give their own players a chance.

Kramnik vs Fritz playing good chess under fair conditions
By Matthias Wüllenweber, ChessBase GmbH, Hamburg.

A serious match against the human World Champion is the highest possible achievement in computer chess. The match against Vladimir Kramnik in Bahrain is not only the peak of Fritz' eleven years chess career but also the longest and strongest fight ever between a man and a machine, a worthy revenge for Kasparov against Deep Blue five years ago. Today Kramnik is the toughest opponent for chess programs. His flexible positional chess style, his self control and psychological strength are perfect weapons in the battle against computers. He has proven this in previous encounters against the programs Fritz and Junior, where the silicon opponents suffered short sharp shock treatments on both occasions. However software and hardware have made good progress since then. Fritz7 leads the world computer ranking list by a clear margin, and its authors Frans Morsch and Mathias Feist have already made many new advances, leaving the version 7 far behind in development. So while deep in our tribal genes we all wish Kramnik success, it will be a breathtaking fight. Relying on human intuition and creativity he must avoid positions where the calculating power of the machine prevails and every false step can lead to a loss.

It is important that the match rules establish optimal playing conditions to ensure maximum strength for both human and computer. The match is not about exploiting human weaknesses to pull a short-lived marketing stunt. The match is not about tiring the human player, putting him under psychological pressure, making him feel uncomfortable or insecure. This match is about playing good chess under fair conditions for both sides. Vladimir Kramnik will get the program a month in advance to get accustomed to its individual style. Human beings have the ability to learn and to draw conclusions. This ability should be a factor where men compete with machines, so a careful preparation is in the spirit of this event. There are enough small random factors like hash table size in modern chess software to avoid move-by-move preparation in specific positions.

The status of the Bahrain match is underlined by its considerable prize fund. In the event of a win, Fritz would receive 400,000 USD, a draw still yields 200,000 USD. The makers of Fritz, Frans Morsch and ChessBase, have decided to put any price money the program wins into an independent foundation to promote junior chess. Such a foundation would organize summer training camps, tournaments, and encourage chess in schools. Its goal will be to make chess a cool sport for intelligent young people.

So whatever the outcome in Bahrain the humans win in the end.

Reprint of this interview is permitted in full or parts if you give credit to the source www.chessbase.com.

Re:text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421468)

Reprint of this interview is permitted in full or parts if you give credit to the source www.chessbase.com.

For once, a mirror post is not infringing copyright. I wonder why you were marked as flamebait.

Programming is not creative? (5, Interesting)

hij (552932) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421320)

There is an impicit assumption that the person playing the computer is only playing against the computer. This is the creativity of humans vs the brute force of computers argument. I would argue that the person is up against the programmers skills as well as the hardware.

There is an enormous amount of creativity and human effort in creating Deep Blue or Fritz. Deep blue's win was not a machine beating a man. It was a team of programmers who were able to figure out how to get a piece of hardware to beat man at his own game!

Re:Programming is not creative? (2, Insightful)

adam613 (449819) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421340)

Not necessarily. It is possible to write a program which knows only the rules of the game, and teaches itself how to play. This requires the programmer to be talented at writing machine learning code, but not necessarily talented at the game of chess.

An interesting page on the topic [satirist.org]

Re:Programming is not creative? (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421380)

Computers programmed to play chess beat humans.

Computers programmed to learn chess beat compters programmed to play chess.

Computers programmed to program computers to play chess...

Re:Programming is not creative? (2)

tshak (173364) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421413)

It is possible to write a program which knows only the rules of the game, and teaches itself how to play. This requires the programmer to be talented at writing machine learning code, but not necessarily talented at the game of chess.


This is an insightful and interesting point, however, it does not pertain to the "chess computers" at hand. Although these machines may "learn" chess styles as they go, they are programmed with huge opening and closing databases, human created strategies, and have the power to brute force.

Re:Programming is not creative? (2)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421491)

But human chess players also learn openings and endings and typical situations and startegies created by others. Most of the better players don't have to "think" what would happen next, they simply know. However, they still have to decide on a move leading to a situation they think they can handle better than their oponent.

Last but not least, in major turnaments the games usually last two days, and in the night between the players ask their staff for strategic aid.

Re:Programming is not creative? (2)

sphealey (2855) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421414)

Not necessarily. It is possible to write a program which knows only the rules of the game, and teaches itself how to play. This requires the programmer to be talented at writing machine learning code, but not necessarily talented at the game of chess.
I don't think so. Not realistically, anyway. All chess programs that I know of start with an opening book, which catalogues the best known responses for the most common x games (x being 5000, 10000, whatever human and machine memory can handle). These openings were in large part developed with thought and analysis, not just brute force trial-and-error.

If you just set a chess program loose without an opening book, I think it would be millions of years before it replicated those openings. That doesn't pass the Turing test or even my definition of "playing chess". IMHO anyway.

sPh

Re:Programming is not creative? (1)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421532)

Not necessarily. It's thenafter about talent of programmers to write better "self-learning" code ;-)

CmdrTaco's first time with Tyrone (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421321)

CmdrTaco was new to the slashdot compound. He had just recently come out as gay even though he had known at some level that he was a flaming homo his entire life. CmdrTaco had discovered a website called slashdot that helped him come out, and eventually he came to be a part of the crew of Slashdot janitors living in the Slashdot compound.

CmdrTaco had heard CowboiKneel and Homos talking about Tyrone. They didn't say much in the way of useful information. All they would tell CmdrTaco was that Tyrone visited the Slashdot compound every other week on Friday. Then they would just smile.

CmdrTaco wondered with anticipation about Tyrone, but would have to wait a week to meet him.

The next Friday Tyrone visited the Slashdot compound. CmdrTaco nearly fainted when he saw Tyrone. Tyrone was huge (nearly 6 feet 6 inches tall), black, and incredibly muscular. This was in direct contrast to CmdrTaco who was short at 5 feet 3 inches tall, white, and incredibly thin. Tyrone saw CmdrTaco and said in his deep voice, "Fresh meat. I want to take him first."

CmdrTaco was both nervous and excited as he and Tyrone went to his room in the Slashdot compound. When they got there Tyrone closed the door and locked it. Tyrone then picked up and threw CmdrTaco on the bed. Tyrone then proceeded to all manner of homosexual acts against CmdrTaco's small body. Tyrone made CmdrTaco suck his dick. He would also make CmdrTaco take his dick up CmdrTaco's ass. Since Tyrone had a big black dick, CmdrTaco cried out in pain. Eventually, CmdrTaco fell unconcious.

The next day CmdrTaco woke up with bruises all over his body, with every part of his body in pain. The rest of the Slashdot janitors were in a similar state. CmdrTaco couldn't wait for Tyrone to come visit again.

Re:CmdrTaco's first time with Tyrone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421452)

Ebert: I dunno Gene, I just didn't like this troll. The anarchronisms, the complete disregard for historical relevance, it just didn't add up for me. I give it a thumbs down.
Siskel: My god Roger! For the first time in weeks we agree. This was the worst troll I have seen in a long time. I mean what closeted 12 year old wrote this piece of trash. It wasnt even funny. Thumbs DOWN.

Limits of computers? (5, Interesting)

adam613 (449819) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421322)

It's interesting that computers haven't been trained to always win or tie at chess.

Chess is a game of perfect information. Each player knows every detail of the game state at any moment. Therefore, there has to be formula of some sort that can be applied to guarantee one player victory. Reasoning as follows:

Say I construct a lookup table for every possible combination of moves. Then I eliminate every move which doesn't lead to my victory. I am left with a lookup table which contains the proper response to every move my opponent makes.

There are two possibilities: I win the game, or my opponent wins the game. However, in order for my opponent to win, he/she would have to come up with a sequence of moves which is not in my lookup table. Since my lookup table is exhaustive, this is impossible.

Given an infinite amount of processing power and memory, could someone "solve" the game of chess?

If so, could someone use techniques such as genetic programming or neural networks to learn the lookup table in a finite amount of time/space?

Re:Limits of computers? (2, Informative)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421346)

>Given an infinite amount of processing power and
memory, could someone "solve" the game of chess?

Yes. You can even argue it's solvable by an O(1) algorithm, similar to what you describe.

>If so, could someone use techniques such as
genetic programming or neural networks to learn the lookup table in a finite amount of time/space?

There's only a limited number of positions. You can enumerate them and then 'solve' the game in the same way we generate endgame tablebases. But we lack storage and processing power for many many many years to come.

--
GCP

Re:Limits of computers? (5, Interesting)

sh4de (93527) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421412)

In chess, we're not ultimately hampered by storage or processing power, but the size of the universe itself. I remember reading that in chess, there are more valid positions than there are atoms in the known universe! This calculation even took account the fact that some positions aren't necessarily reached by any sequence of legal moves.

In either case, the storage requirements are so astoundingly huge that chess cannot be "solved" in that sense. Instead, the position at hand has to be evaluated from scratch each time, applying an "n-ply" tree lookup to determine the best move, leading to the best outcome.

Now, the best outcome is a moving target itself. Chess programs tend to emphasize advantage in raw materials, which is often directly transferable to a victory, if both players know what they're doing.

A human player, on a grandmaster level, may sport an ability to play in a "creative" way, wherein the computer is confused by a series of "non-op" moves that will pay off in 20 moves or so. A well known positional genius, Bobby Fischer, has played games that are intriguing to watch and analyze. A computer wouldn't rank some of his moves very high, but they all carry a meaning in the long run.

Re:Limits of computers? (5, Informative)

sphealey (2855) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421432)

There's only a limited number of positions. You can enumerate them and then 'solve' the game in the same way we generate endgame tablebases. But we lack storage and processing power for many many many years to come.
The number of possible chess games isn't known excatly [wolfram.com] , but since even the lower estimates approach the number of atoms in the known universe we will be waiting a long time for enough processing power and memory to enumerate every possible game!

sPh

Re:Limits of computers? (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421534)

>The number of possible chess games isn't known
>excatly [wolfram.com], but since even the lower
>estimates approach the number of atoms in the
>known universe we will be waiting a long time
>for enough processing power and memory to
>enumerate every possible game!

I intentionally avoided using the word impossible because there is no way to tell what someone comes up with next.

For example, 4-in-a-row was partly solved by brute forcing all possibilities, but they avoided searching a great deal of positions by devising certain rules which allowed them to quickly identify whether or not a position was winnable.

Something just as simple is not applicable to chess, but maybe something else we don't know yet is.

Perhaps someone will invent a method to store information in quarks :)

--
GCP

Re:Limits of computers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421353)

Perhaps you should try estimating the number
of possible states. 'Tis quite large.

Re:Limits of computers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421360)

> Given an infinite amount of processing power and memory, could someone "solve" the game of chess?

Yes. In fact, you would only need a finite amount of time since there's only a finite amount of legal games due to rules about draws. Computers have an opening "book" which are precomputed series of moves. Those would just be extended further and further out as they were computed until they covered all games of interest.

This makes your other question moot but I'll point out that genetic algorithms and neural nets can't solve an infinite problem faster than any other solution. They make finite approximations. If they can exactly solve a problem, then other techniques can too. They're buzzwords not magic.

Re:Limits of computers? (1, Informative)

Beatlebum (213957) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421398)

Jesus Christ. Go read about alpha-beta pruning you moron. You piss in the wind and dress it up as if you've come up with some kind of fantastic insight. Of course the game is "solvable" and of course we have to trim the search space.

The is what /. is all about. Eejits who proclaim they don't need a CS degree to program, who then enlighten us on subjects any CS course would cover in the first year. Worse still, the other eejits are actually impressed and mod-up these priceless pearls of wisdom.

Re:Limits of computers? (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421440)

Hehehe. Well said. I'm in agreement, even though I'm what I'd call a "business programmer". I know there is a difference in skills that I have to make up for with a willingness to delve into tax code.

Re:Limits of computers? (2, Insightful)

Yurian (164643) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421439)

Given an infinite amount of processing power and memory, could someone "solve" the game of chess?

Certainly, given an infinite amount of processing power and storage space. But then, you can't just ring up Dell and say "Hi, I want an infitite amount of processors by next Tuesday"...And even if you could, it might not do you all that much good - You see, if you do a few calculations it turns out that there are more possible chess positions than there are atoms in the universe. Which might prove problematic when you are trying to store them.

Of course there are ways go about "solving" chess that don't require you to enumerate every possible board, but they are still way beyond the reach of classical computing, probably forever. Quantum computing might be a different story, but we'll just have to wait and see how that one pans out..

Re:Limits of computers? (0, Insightful)

Rock 'N' Troll (566273) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421447)

Say I construct a lookup table for every possible combination of moves. Then I eliminate every move which doesn't lead to my victory. I am left with a lookup table which contains the proper response to every move my opponent makes.

Horribly stupid idea. On average, there are 35 (?) legal moves from any position. Let's say we restrict a game to 100 moves, and we'll need a lookup table of 2.5*10^154 positions, which is obviously way more than than we could store if we used the entire universe for memory. Not to mention the time it would take to search all these positions.

Re:Limits of computers? (1)

Cuthalion (65550) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421486)

Chess is a game of perfect information

Good thing too. Otherwise FICS would be ruined by losers using hacked clients to eliminate fog of war.

Strategy versus Tactics (4, Insightful)

Chiasmus_ (171285) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421323)

It's been well known since, well, before I was born, that a computer could easily trounce a human in any game involving only tactics. For example, many fourth graders in this country have programmed a BASIC script to create a tic-tac-toe player that will never lose.

Therefore, it's not particularly novel that computers can beat people at tactical games. The only thing interesting that I see arising from these onging "human versus machine" chess matches is the proposition that strategy can be broken down into millions of tiny tactical evaluations.

This begs the question: is the strategy that a human chess player would use also based on these millions of tiny tactical evaluations, only so subtle that he's not aware they're going on in the vast electrochemistry of his brain? Or is strategy discernable from tactics in a human mind, but simply a subset thereof in a computer?

The sole interesting conclusion I draw is that if it can be proven that strategy is something different to man and machine, then a hybrid approach might allow us to solve problems in ways we've never dreamed of. Whether that hybrid approach would involve implanting computers in our minds, making computers that can function like minds, or simply working really well with computers, I leave to you.

Re:Strategy versus Tactics (2)

aozilla (133143) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421409)

It's been well known since, well, before I was born, that a computer could easily trounce a human in any game involving only tactics.

Would you call "Go" a game of tactics? It took me about a month to be able to beat GnuGo, and I can now beat it while giving it a horribly ridiculous number of handicaps. I could probably beat any computer program currently in existence, and given a couple years of practice, so could just about anyone.

Re:Strategy versus Tactics (4, Interesting)

lkaos (187507) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421478)

that a computer could easily trounce a human in any game involving only tactics.

Be careful with the word easily. Remember, programmers are only human too. A human must first master the game before he can write a program to beat anyone. There has to be a "perfect solution" as there is in tic-tac-toe found. A computer can assist in finding the perfect solution, but a programmer has to at least give it direction.

is the strategy that a human chess player would use also based on these millions of tiny tactical evaluations, only so subtle that he's not aware they're going on in the vast electrochemistry of his brain?

More or less. At least, this is the current thinking. The brain is just a big-ole circuit that produces an output when given inputs. The neat thing about the brain is that its output can be used again as inputs to allow the path to be optimized. Computers currently can't really do that.

making computers that can function like minds, or simply working really well with computers, I leave to you.

This is the basis of artificial intellegence research. I do believe though that we will need to advance more in biomechanics before we can do anything worthwhile in AI since it isn't particularily easy to replicate the ability for organic compounds to evolve and recreate themselves.

Then again, what we really should be asking is not how do we replicate biology, but what is it that is more effecient than biology for performing calculations?

Re:Strategy versus Tactics (2)

sphealey (2855) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421501)

More or less. At least, this is the current thinking. The brain is just a big-ole circuit that produces an output when given inputs. The neat thing about the brain is that its output can be used again as inputs to allow the path to be optimized. Computers currently can't really do that.
making computers that can function like minds, or simply working really well with computers, I leave to you.
This is the basis of artificial intellegence research. I do believe though that we will need to advance more in biomechanics before we can do anything worthwhile in AI since it isn't particularily easy to replicate the ability for organic compounds to evolve and recreate themselves.
I disagree [slashdot.org] . To me, the chess problem demonstrates pretty convincingly that we fundamentally don't know anything about the nature of intelligence. "Artificial intelligence is 30 years away - and has been for the last 40 years".

sPh

Re:Strategy versus Tactics (5, Insightful)

Spy Hunter (317220) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421498)

It's been well known since, well, before I was born, that a computer could easily trounce a human in any game involving only tactics.

Well known, perhaps, by people who have never heard of Go [igoweb.org] .

THIS IS A DUPE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421324)

See here [slashdot.org]

Fritz vs Deep Blue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421331)

Deep Blue was developed by a TEAM that included several GM players. It searched an average of 200 million nodes per SECOND. Fritz searches about 1% of that speed and doesn't have GM players paid to help in the development.

What would you conclude???

Re:Fritz vs Deep Blue (1)

fobef (541536) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421362)

Nothing, nodes per second alone is a meaningless figure. Besides, I hear that Rebel generally is considered a stronger opponent against humen, although it might lose against Fritz head to head.

Open Source? More Like Openly Racist (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421332)

The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt racism that is deeply embedded in the movement.

Allow me to explain.

Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.

What do you see in this list of names? Are there any African-Americans on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting black person would have! No Maurice, no Luther, no Lil' Kim. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than white faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent racists and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any person of color.

Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any black owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by an African-American? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single black person to be seen, and probably none for miles.

More racist overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'white hat' hackers. These 'white hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'black hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. White means good, black means bad. Anywhere there is black, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see black lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little Black Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious racists. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.

It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of racist commands with not so hidden symbolism.

It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised racist acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All White Klan) , 'sed' (shoot nEgroes dead), 'ln' (lynch negroes), 'rpm' (raical purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a slave home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat nubians today), 'fsck' (favored supreme Christian klan). I could go on and on about the latent racist symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.

Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden racist connotation ? Suffice it to say that the racism pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a racist operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for the Klan!

One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages. Browsing through the list I see that absolutely none are offered in Swahili, nor Ebonics. Obviously this is done to prevent black people from having access to the kernel. If it weren't for the fact that racism is so blatantly evil I would be impressed by the efforts these Open Sourcers have invested in keeping their little hobby lilly white. It even appears that they hate the Japanese, as some of these self proclaimed hackers defaced a web site with anti-Japanese slogans. Hell, these people even go all the way to Africa (South Africa mind you, better known as White Africa) and the pictures prove that they don't even get close to a black person.

Of course, presenting overwhelming evidence such as this is a bit unfair without some attempt to determine why these Open Sourcers are so racist. Much of the evidence I have collected indicates that their views are so deeply held that they are seldom questioned by the new recruits. This, coupled with the robot-like groupthink that dominates the culture allows the racist mindset to continue to permeate the ranks. Indeed, the Open Source version of a Klan rally, OSDN (known to the world as Open Source Developer's Network, known to insiders as Open Source Denies Negroes) nearly stands up and shouts its racist views on its demographics page. It doesn't mention the black man one single time. Obviously, anyone involved with Open Source doesn't need to be told that the demographic is entirely white, it is a given.

I have a sneaking suspicion as to why their beliefs are so closely held: they are all terrible athletes.

Really. Much like the tragedy at Columbine High School, where two geeks went on a rampage to get back at 'jocks', these adult geeks still bear the emotional scars inflicted upon them due to their lack of athletic ability during their teen years. As African-Americans are well known for their athletic skills, they are an obvious target for the Open Source geeks. As we all know, sports builds character, thus it follows that the lack of sports destroys character. These geeks, locked away in their rooms, munching on stale pizza and Fritos, engage in no character building activities. Further, they interact only with computers and never develop the level of social skill that allows normal people to handle relationships with persons of color.

Contrasted with the closed source, non-geeky software house Microsoft, Open Source has a long, long way to go.

Next stage of evolution for Fritz:Public relations (4, Funny)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421335)


Every time one of these matches comes up, there's always interviews with the human player, who at least indirectly claims a noble cause beyond his abilities. It would be nice for the computer player to defend itself against such subtle barbs.

ChessBase: How would you characterize your next match?

Fritz IX: Well, [ChessBase], I would first like to thank you for inviting me over to speak with you. Humans have called me many things for my efficient navigation of the rules of chess, as if I somehow reduced the meaningfullness of human emotions and human motivations. Nothing could be further from the truth - without such emotions and motivations, most of the ideas that went into my creation could never have come to be. I could not work as a fully brute-force move calculator, and the very ways I decide what gambit would be the most adantagious are based on thousands of human versus human games...

...and so on.

*Sniff* I miss futurama.

:^)

Ryan Fenton

profit? (1)

blindbat (189141) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421339)

ChessBase: Do you think that chess might be promoted by the ability to play against people on the Internet?

Kramnik: There is only one answer to this question: chess profits more than any other activity from the Internet.

I always thought it was gambling and pr0n.

Re:profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421367)

I agree. Chess games are a lot more exciting
when you've got money and women riding on them.

Open Source? More Like Openly Homosexual (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421348)

The Open Source movement, otherwise known as 'Free Software', has been a topic of considerable debate on the Internet's most controversial site. The majority of this debate has centered around the technical merits of the software, with the esteemed editors argueing against adopting Linux by employing the full depth of their considerable intellects, and the other side hurling death threats and similar invective. This has allowed many who would not otherwise receive quality information about Open Source software to be made aware of many of its ramifications, but one issue has been left alone: The overt homosexuality that is deeply embedded in the movement.

Allow me to explain.

Alan Cox; Richard Stallman; Bruce Perens; Wichert Akkerman; Miguel DeIcaza.

What do you see in this list of names? Are there any hetrosexuals on it? Absolutely not, none of those names sound like one a self-respecting hetrosexual person would have! No Henry, no Steve, no Joe. There are many other lists such as this, you can see one here. Flip through each page, do you see anything other than homosexual faces? Of course you don't, because Open Source and its adherents are ardent homosexuals and they absolutely forbid access to the sacred 'kernel' by any hetrosexual person.

Lets look at another list, this time a compendium of the companies using Linux. Are there any hetrosexual owned companies on that list? Nooooooo. How about these companies? They all have something to do with Open Source software, any of them owned by a hetrosexual? No again. Here is an extensive collection of photographs from a LUG (Linux User Gathering) meeting, more can be viewed at that link. What is odd about these pictures, and every other photograph I have ever seen of a LUG meeting, is that there is not one single hetrosexual person to be seen, and probably none for miles.

More homosexual overtones can be found by examining the language of Open Source. They often refer to 'homosexual hat' hackers. These 'homosexual hats' scurry about the Internet doing good, but illegal, acts for their fellow man. In stark contrast we find the 'hetrosexual hat' hackers. They destroy the good works of others by breaking into systems, stealing data, and generally causing havoc. These two terms reflect the mindset of most Linux developers. homosexual means good, hetrosexual means bad. Anywhere there is hetrosexual, there is uncontrollable destruction and lawlessness. Looking further we see hetrosexual lists that inform other users of 'bad' hardware, Samba, an obvious play on the much hated Little hetrosexual Sambo book, Mandrake, which I won't explain except to say that the French are notorious homosexuals. This type is linguistic discrimination is widespread throughout the Open Source culture, lampooned by many of its more popular sites.

It is also a fact that all Unix 'distros' contain a plethora of homosexual commands with not so hidden symbolism.

It can hardly be coincidence that the prime operating system of choice of the 'open source supremacists' - Linux, features commands which are poorly disguised homosexual acronyms. For example: 'awk' (All homosexual NAMBLA) , 'sed' (shoot hEtrosexuals dead), 'ln' (lynch hetrosexuals), 'rpm' (homosexual purity mandatory), 'bash' (bring a hetrosexual home), 'ps' (persecute sambo), 'mount' (murder or unseat hetrosexuals today), 'fsck' (favored supreme homosexual nambla). I could go on and on about the latent homosexual symbolism in Linux, but I fear it would take weeks to enumerate every incidence.

Is there a single unix command out there that does not have some hidden homosexual connotation ? Suffice it to say that the homosexual pervades Linux like a particularly bad smell. Can you imagine the effect of running such a homosexual operating system on the impressionable mind ? I don't have to remind you that transmitting subliminal messages is banned in the USA, and yet here we have an operating system that appears to be one enormous submliminal ad for NAMBLA!

One of the few selling points of Open Source software is that it is available in many different languages. Browsing through the list I see that absolutely none are offered in American, nor Hebrew. Obviously this is done to prevent hetrosexual people from having access to the kernel. If it weren't for the fact that homosexuality is so blatantly evil I would be impressed by the efforts these Open Sourcers have invested in keeping their little hobby lilly homosexual. It even appears that they hate the Japanese, as some of these self proclaimed hackers defaced a web site with anti-Japanese slogans. Hell, these people even go all the way to Greece (the home of homosexuality) and the pictures prove that they don't even get close to a hetrosexual person.

Of course, presenting overwhelming evidence such as this is a bit unfair without some attempt to determine why these Open Sourcers are so homosexual. Much of the evidence I have collected indicates that their views are so deeply held that they are seldom questioned by the new recruits. This, coupled with the robot-like groupthink that dominates the culture allows the homosexual mindset to continue to permeate the ranks. Indeed, the Open Source version of a Nambla rally, OSDN (known to the world as Open Source Developer's Network, known to insiders as Open Source Denies Hetrosexuals) nearly stands up and shouts its homosexual views on its demographics page. It doesn't mention the hetrosexual man one single time. Obviously, anyone involved with Open Source doesn't need to be told that the demographic is entirely homosexual, it is a given.

I have a sneaking suspicion as to why their beliefs are so closely held: they are all terrible athletes.

Really. Much like the tragedy at Columbine High School, where two geeks went on a rampage to get back at 'jocks', these adult geeks still bear the emotional scars inflicted upon them due to their lack of athletic ability during their teen years. As hetrosexuals are well known for their athletic skills, they are an obvious target for the Open Source geeks. As we all know, sports builds character, thus it follows that the lack of sports destroys character. These geeks, locked away in their rooms, munching on stale pizza and Fritos, engage in no character building activities. Further, they interact only with computers and never develop the level of social skill that allows normal people to handle relationships with hetrosexuals.

Contrasted with the closed source, non-geeky software house Microsoft, Open Source has a long, long way to go.

hm (1)

zapfie (560589) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421352)

From someone who has played them, how does Chess compare to Go or Shogi in terms of depth and style of play?

Re:hm (5, Informative)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421419)

>From someone who has played them, how does Chess
>compare to Go or Shogi in terms of depth and
>style of play?

I've played all three and written strong programs to play two of them, but this still is a hard question.

Go is by far the deepest. The current top programs play at the level of a (rather weak) club player. It's got a huge branching factor (number of possible moves) which makes any brute or semi-brute force appraoch (what is used for chess) impossible. Most programs around right now are based on pattern recognition.

Funny thing is, the game is by far the simplest. John Tromp (the guy that wrote the 'shorter turing machine' that was posted to /. a few weeks ago) designed a complete ruleset that's only a few lines long. In practise, there are many rulesets, most of them because of tradition. This is somewhat problematic when making a program, because some rulesets are simply not complete.

Playing go is a very nice mixture of tactics and strategy. One other thing that's very nice about it is that there is a very good handicap system. The games can always be close, even against much stronger players.

Chess, well, it's mostly about tactics. Of course positional understanding matters a lot, but it's actually rather insignificant compared to the tactical part. Mostly due to continious small advances in technique and hardware, we've now got programs that are able to search about 16 half-moves (move by one side) deep. That'll nearly always take care of the tactical part. Programming strategical understanding is much harder, but a lot of progress is being made in the latter. Especially the latest generation of programs took a big step forward. We've got computers that can successfully compete with the very best humans.

Shogi I've only played once, but I've been working a lot on a chess variant that behaves like Shogi in the past. (captured pieces can be dropped) It's got almost double the branching factor of chess, and hence is somewhere halfway between go and chess. The big issue with it is that it is also very tactical, unlike go. Even though the brute force depth of current programs isn't great, they can extend mating lines very well. And mates are important in shogi/dropchess :) I would have to check for the current state of the art, but I believe the top programs are quite competitive here.

--
GCP

Re:hm (1)

zapfie (560589) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421442)

That was very informative- thank you. Do you have links to the programs you wrote, or are they in commercial software?

Re:hm (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421463)

>That was very informative- thank you. Do you
>have links to the programs you wrote, or are
>they in commercial software?

You can get them from the link in the header of my post, or look around on the site that slashdot linked to (chessbase.com), in the downloads-uci engines section.

There are free and Free versions :)

--
GCP

Re:hm (Go) (1)

Sabaki (531686) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421450)

As I understand Shogi, it's very similar to Chess. I've been playing Go for about 14 years now -- it's much deeper and complex than Chess, even if you only look at it numerically. With a 19x19 board and games that have been over 400 moves long, the brute force approach used by Deep Blue simply wouldn't work for Go.

As far as style of play, the complexity of the game makes for a much more interesting and organic game. Victory is based on territory, not so you could lose your biggest group or your not capture a single stone and still win the game.

Strategy plays a bigger role, as there is more of a battlefield to be strategic -- sacrifices are very common and natural, and even life and death is more complex -- usually you'll know when a Chess pieces is dead, it gets removed from the board. But a group in Go will often be left in a half-alive state, only to be rescue or killed later as part of a bigger threat.

More info about Go can be found at: http://www.usgo.org/

Re:hm (1)

herwin (169154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421528)

>From someone who has played them, how does Chess compare to Go or Shogi in terms of depth and style of play?

--Shogi has about the depth of chess, but it's really different in its tactics. The fact that lost pieces can be used against you means that the game is much more decisive. Go, on the other hand, is much deeper than chess, uses human pattern recognition skills much more intensively, and emphasizes strategy to a much greater degree than chess.

Kasparov reply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421354)

here [kasparov.com]

relevant quotes:

I think the comparison between Deep Blue and Fritz 7 is simply out of place, to put it mildly. On the one hand you have a top chess computer specially developed and designed for the match in the secret laboratories of IBM by the best specialists in the world, while Fritz 7 is just a chess program, a very strong and successful one, but still a chess program which could be purchased by anyone anywhere in the world! Only this difference is enough to decide this argument in Deep Blue's favor

Concerning the match itself, if it's going to be held under the conditions I know about (Kramnik gets the Fritz 7 version he is going to compete with in advance in order to prepare for the match, etc), I must say that any other result than a convincing win by Kramnik will be simply unacceptable by me!

Don't be fooled by propaganda. (3, Interesting)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421355)

Kasparov sent out a reaction shortly afterwards claiming that Kramnik's statement that Fritz is better than Deep Blue is nonsense.

There's some PR involved here. If Kramnik wins, he wants to look good, so saying Fritz is better than Deep Blue makes him look better. For Kasparov, it's just the opposite.

Whether or not Fritz is actually better than Deep Blue is a matter of endless discussion even among computerchess experts. And we'll never know the answer, because Deep Blue no longer exists.

--
GCP

Re:Don't be fooled by propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421513)

Note too that the interview site is that of the makers of Fritz, hence the infomercial quality of this content.

IMPORTANT WARNING: Avoid CmdrTaco's "special taco" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421361)

This is an important warning to all slashdotters. CmdrTaco has been luring people (mainly underage males) into the slashdot compound to eat his "special taco".

You may be wondering what CmdrTaco's "special taco" is. You will be wishing that you hadn't been wondering after you finish reading his post. To make his "special taco", CmdrTaco takes a taco shell and shits on it. He then adds lettuce, takes out his tiny withered dick (otherwise known as his "Commander"), puts his "special taco sauce" on it which means he jacks off on the taco, and adds a compound to make the person who eats the taco unconcious. Of course, the compound does not make the person unconcous until the taco is fully eaten. Thus CmdrTaco force feeds the taco to the unsuspecting victim. After all, who would knowingly eat shit and CmdrTaco's jizz.

After the victim is unconcous, he is held against his will and used for CmdrTaco's nefarious homosexual purposes. This includes shoving taco shells up the victim's ass, taco snotting, and getting JonKatz involved. Trust me, you do not want JonKatz anywhere near your unconcious body. Also, rumor has it CmdrTaco is looking for a new goatse.cx guy. Don't let it be you!!!!!

The last thing you may be wondering is how this goes along with "taco snotting", or what "taco snotting" is. George WIPO Bush and The WIPO Troll have been doing considerable work explaining what "taco snotting" is. Please see his FAQ on "taco snotting" which can be found as a -1 rated comment on most slashdot stories.

Please, if CmdrTaco offers you his "special taco", RUN LIKE HELL!!!!!!!!

Technology keeps getting better (1)

thedbp (443047) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421378)

Now if only I could get a robot to hand-wash my boxers while he simultaneously writes my research papers ...

Noticed this at the bottom of the article (1)

Space Coyote (413320) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421387)

At the end of the article, this little statement caught my eye:

Reprint of this interview is permitted in full or parts if you give credit to the source www.chessbase.com.

Nice to see journalism taking a page from the Free Software world, isn't it? :)

Anti-doping? (1)

set (19875) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421395)

Does anyone close to the Chess community know about this [fide.com] ?
Were there problems in the past with it? Any anecdotes?
This is incredibly bizarre to me.

Re:Anti-doping? (2)

martissimo (515886) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421536)

there had been a few rumors of some drugs that improved mental stimulation type things, but that is not the main reason for the testing. The primary reason for it, is that they are hoping to make a push for IOC recognition (the Olympics)

Off topic but VERY IMPORTANT: Games In Trouble! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421418)

Games aren't speech, story, or expression?! [slashdot.org]

Read that journal entry and discuss it there. There's links to other articles and places of discussion about this. This is trouble for the entire game development community, help out by speaking up about it!

He's going to play against a boxed product (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421424)

The world chess champion is going to play against Fritz 7, a commercial boxed product chess program. [chessbase.com] A cheap one: €102.50 in the multiprocessor version. The program will be run on an 8-processor IA-86 machine, more than a typical PC, but not that much more. (OK, the multiprocessor version shipping is Fritz 6, while the uniprocessor version shipping is Fritz 7, so the latest high-end version isn't quite shipping yet.)

Kramnik says that the Fritz 7 program on a laptop is producing some better moves than Deep Blue did against Kasparov. That's how much progress there's been.

Chess programs are now so powerful that unless your're a rated master, you can be trounced by a palmtop. Even the palmtop programs are now achieving draws against grandmasters.

Re:He's going to play against a boxed product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421441)

Chess programs are now so powerful that unless your're a rated master, you can be trounced by a palmtop.

Which is why the real interest is in Go, for which an average player can beat the very best supercomputer.

Re:He's going to play against a boxed product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421445)


Kramnik says that the Fritz 7 program on a laptop is producing some better moves than Deep Blue did against Kasparov. That's how much progress there's been.
I think the comparison between Deep Blue and Fritz 7 is simply out of place, to put it mildly. On the one hand you have a top chess computer specially developed and designed for the match in the secret laboratories of IBM by the best specialists in the world, while Fritz 7 is just a chess program, a very strong and successful one, but still a chess program which could be purchased by anyone anywhere in the world! Only this difference is enough to decide this argument in Deep Blue's favor

Concerning the match itself, if it's going to be held under the conditions I know about (Kramnik gets the Fritz 7 version he is going to compete with in advance in order to prepare for the match, etc), I must say that any other result than a convincing win by Kramnik will be simply unacceptable by me!

Re:He's going to play against a boxed product (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421446)

Sorry, meant IA-32, the usual Intel architecture. On Windows, unfortunately.

Re:He's going to play against a boxed product (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421451)

>Kramnik says that the Fritz 7 program on a
>laptop is producing some better moves than Deep
>Blue did against Kasparov.

Unfortunately, that's a completely invalid way of judging a computers playing strength.

You can have a program that does very well on a few isolated positions, but sucks in real games, because it may have a weakness that didn't figure in those positions, but that can easily be exploited.

If you would test a program in positions where the theme is attacking the king, the newest ones would do very well. Put them in a position where the goal is to maneouver strategically, and they will look like patzers.

Don't forget there are PR reasons for Kramnik to claim that too...

--
GCP

How to beat computer chess programs every time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421430)

Fake left, go right.

The computer naively looks at your shoulders, when it should be looking at your hips.

i think Kasparov is the champion (2)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421434)

chess is suffering problems similar to those of boxing. Split championships etc. But i think that every one agrees that Kasparov is still the best player out there.

What about man AND machine? (2)

aozilla (133143) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421453)

What I'd like to see is Kramnik, Deep Blue, and Fritz vs. Kasparov, Deep Blue, and Fritz. Basically, the grandmaster can use the computer to explore possibilities and make calculations, but ultimately the move decision is his.

Re:What about man AND machine? (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421476)

>What I'd like to see is Kramnik, Deep Blue, and
>Fritz vs. Kasparov, Deep Blue, and Fritz.
>Basically, the grandmaster can use the computer
>to explore possibilities and make calculations,
>but ultimately the move decision is his.

This is commonly called 'Advanced Chess'. Do a search on Google and you'll find some interesting matches.

--
GCP

Fritz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421462)

with a comparasion between Deep Blue and Fritz

Call me paranoid, but the first thing I thought when I saw Fritz was Fritz Hollings.

Chess programs demonstrate we don't know anything (2)

sphealey (2855) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421490)

To me, chess programs are the strongest demonstration around that we don't know anything about the nature of intelligence. You would expect that since, say, 1980 or so, when numerical calculating power greatly in excess of the human brain became available (and I set it at 1980, not 1960-70, just to be conservative) that computer chess programs should have been able to whomp human players right off the board.

And yet, this hasn't happened. Even today, when numerical computing power vast beyond the limits of human understanding is available, there are still a few humans who can beat the best chess programs. This is as if an Olympic runner could still out run and outpull a modern freight locomotive! "Inconceivable"!

That any human can still defeat chess programs tells us that humans must be playing chess in some way fundamentally different from the numerical calculations and search algorithms used by the programs. And I don't think anyone has even come close to describing how this occurs.

sPh

Machine Chess (1)

herwin (169154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421505)

I've been playing around with Gnu Chess and Sigma Chess 6.0 to see how the game has changed since I last played competitively. At that time, I was playing at an expert level, but now I'm having difficulty beating the machine when it plays at 1200. It might be that I'm 40 years out of date, but I'm not sure that's everything--the chessplaying programs are really hard to beat tactically. So how do people beat them?

Hardware Comparison (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421511)

Deep Blue II was composed of 2 frameloads of IBM SP/2 RS/6000 nodes interconnected by a proprietary crossbar switch. Each node had a specialized MCA-bus board which offloaded all automatable functions (move generation, position sorting...) freeing up the RISC processors to evaluate positions. The net result was that DBII could evaluate roughly 200 million positions per second. Deep Fritz 7.x on the other hand will run on an 8-processor Compaq Wintel machine and will be able to evaluate roughly 4 million positions per second.

The only wiggle room for making a reasonable comparison between these devices is provided by the assertion that the Fritz algorithms are so vastly superior to the Deep Blue II algorithms as to compensate for a difference of 2 orders of magnitude in computing power. This assertion is patently ridiculous.

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue II was a legitimate technological watershed. Kramnik vs. Fritz is a marketing effort by Chessbase GMbH. Period.

Prediction (2)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421514)

At the next big computer vs. grand master game, the computer will have a website where people can check the game progress in real-time.

Thirty minutes into the first game, the computer will be Slashdotted. :^)

A glimpse into the future. (3, Interesting)

HanzoSan (251665) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421517)

Slashdot News: "Krammik destroyed by Fritz, breaks computer and throws it out the window"

If you honestly believe Krammik stands a chance, you must not have seen the games with deep blue.

Anyone who is interested in playing chess can check out this chess site Chessline [cjb.net]

yeah, blow me you fucking nerds (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3421524)

my cats breath smells like cat food

I thought we solved this (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 12 years ago | (#3421527)

When a computer kicked the crap out of Kasparov.

And it will only get worse (or better; YMMV).

Machines will get smarter. People won't.

--Blair
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?