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!

Kramnik Ties Fritz; Machines Not Yet Our Masters

michael posted about 12 years ago | from the gnuchess-has-got-my-number-though dept.

Technology 241

Maltov writes "World Chess Champion V. Kramnik ties his match against the software Fritz. Details here. You can also check out a picture gallery and a short history of computer chess."

cancel ×

241 comments

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

Is it just me... (5, Funny)

strredwolf (532) | about 12 years ago | (#4488139)

or are we going to start getting The Onion [theonion.com] inspired subject titles?

Of course... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488489)

Georgia School Board Bans 'Theory Of Math'
COGDELL, GA--The Cogdell School Board banned the teaching of the controversial "Theory Of Math" in its schools Monday. "We are simply not confident of this mysterious process by which numbers turn, as if by magic, into other numbers," board member Gus Reese said. "Those mathematicians are free to believe 3 times 4 equals 12, but that dun [sic] give them the right to force it on our children." Under the new ruling, all math textbooks will carry a disclaimer noting that math is only one of many valid theories of number-manipulation.

As we all know, slashdot uses one of those other theories about number manipulation to calculate karma... Here, 50+1-1 == excellent, dude! :)

Firsty poooost? (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | about 12 years ago | (#4488143)

Chalk another tally up there for the good guys.

unf to htmf (-1)

Eso (205333) | about 12 years ago | (#4488145)

Hackingthemainframe.com [hackingthemainframe.com] rules. And so does Red Meat. And cheese.

I like cheese.

Hmm (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488146)

I wonder if Kramnik is now kicking himself for deliberately throwing several games, or, alternatively, hoping to rake in the cash for the rematch?

Chess (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488152)


My favourite move is "Porn to Queen 4"

Related older link... (3, Informative)

TheGreenGoogler (618700) | about 12 years ago | (#4488160)

This story appeared 8 hours ago here... [globeandmail.com]

Dateline (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488168)

PARIS, FRANCE. Upon hearing news that "Kramnik Ties Fritz; Machines Not Yet Our Masters" France surrendered all cash assets and welcomed their new overlords. France was quoted as saying, "please be gentle"

Re:Dateline (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488472)

I wrote this, and I agree with the over-rated moderations. I mean really. France surrenders? Is that all I can come up with? I'm disgusted in myself, and will go to be without dinner.

We can at best hope a tie.. (4, Interesting)

Tester (591) | about 12 years ago | (#4488169)

If two chess players play perfectly, then the game will always result in a tie. That's one of the big problems with chess as a man-vs-machine benchmark... If both become too good, they will tie all the time.. We might have to move to another game that might be much harder from a computational point of view. (I've been told that the Japanese (or is it Chinese) game of Go is one such game)...

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (5, Interesting)

Kircle (564389) | about 12 years ago | (#4488197)

If two chess players play perfectly, then the game will always result in a tie

Here's an interesting quote from MSNBC:

Friedel pointed to two weaknesses in Kramnik's play characteristic of humans. "Once in 200 moves a human will make a blunder, and that's all Fritz needs. And [Kramnik] was seduced by beauty." He added that Kramnik "understands 100 times more about chess than any computer, but tactically Fritz is a monster."

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (3, Interesting)

pVoid (607584) | about 12 years ago | (#4488204)

The combinatorics behind chess, ie the number of distinct games is so high it would make a 128 bit UUID blush... and UUIDs are unique in time and space...

I wouldn't hold my breath for the "guaranteed tie" level of gameplay to come any time soon...

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (4, Informative)

wwwojtek (246402) | about 12 years ago | (#4488221)

(I've been told that the Japanese (or is it Chinese) game of Go is one such game)

If you ask a Korean, you'll be told that it's Korean (he might call it "baduk" though). Anyway, the point is that we are still years from seeing a machine that can beat a human with a few years of experience (not to mention a professional). The game has much more combinations than chess. The numbers I remember is something of the order of 10^720 distinct games that you can play in go vs. 10^120 in chess - they may be off by a bit but that's roughly the order of magnitude. On top of it, it is not that easy to prune unreasonable moves - in chess you can in most cases easily go down to a few moves to consider while in go it is easily 20 or more in the opening game. You cannot just rely on the brute force but rather on hard to formalize concepts of "shape" and "influence". That's what also makes the game fun.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (3, Insightful)

zulux (112259) | about 12 years ago | (#4488443)

Go is an interesting way to spend time - you can relax your anylitical mind and just let the tactical beauty of the game influance your next move. It's also not as comptetive as Chess - I remember chess wins and losses, but my games of Go are catagoriesed as either fun or bland.

Chess, to me, is a General mashaling troops to battle. Go is like a child playing in the sandbox - having fun, exploring, trying new ideas, making castles.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (0, Offtopic)

GigsVT (208848) | about 12 years ago | (#4488510)

What is this effect? "Post about 'Go' in a chess thread for +5 syndrome?" It's funny that this exact same message, more or less, has made +5 in the last 4 or 5 chess stories.

Mod the parent up! (1, Offtopic)

still_sick (585332) | about 12 years ago | (#4488608)

I couldn't agree with you more.

I still recall one comment posted a while ago along the lines of "If Chess is the thinking man's Checkers, surely Go is the thinking man's Chess.". ???. Ok, dude.

Folks, they're two different animals. The fact that Go contains a massively larger tree and is harder for a computer to play is mostly irrelevant in terms of human players. Both are (for the foreseeable future) too large to even consider calculating. Both trees would contain more nodes than the number of particles in the entire universe.

Imagine it this way. Take two rich people - one has 400 Billion dollars, and one has 500 billion dollars. Clearly the second one is much richer than the first, but that's in no way a slight to the less wealthy person. Both have more money than they'll ever reasonably be able to spend in a hundred years. It would take extraordinary circumstances for the second persons extra hundred billion to be felt at all.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (4, Informative)

yeOldeSkeptic (547343) | about 12 years ago | (#4488523)

I've been told that the Japanese (or is it Chinese) game of Go is one such game.

I keep hearing about how go is much more difficult for a computer to play than is chess. The number of possible moves in go has nothing to do with its difficulty. Computer scientists have been trying to teach computers to play chess for at least half a century and it is only now that computers have become powerful enough and for the theory to advance enough that computers can hold the world chess champion to a tie. Go has not been analyzed and picked apart enough for us to say that it us much more difficult than chess.

Go has the advantage that you start with a bare board. In chess, the game always starts the same way. A computer that has in its memory a century's worth of master games should be at a distinct advantage. The fact that chess engines with million game databases can only manage a tie against a good human champion means computers have barely scratched the surface of chess. When a computer can beat Kasparov at fischer-random chess, I will concede.

Perhaps with the belief among computer chess researchers that chess has been solved will Go soon undergo the same nitpicking that chess has. My bet is that it will prove to be even easier than chess.

Here's why I think so.

  • Go pieces, once placed on the board, cannot move anymore. Chess pieces can still move from one place to the other. This means that as more and more Go pieces are placed on the board, there are less and less positions the computer has to consider.
  • Go requires the ability to look at patterns rather than combinations. Sure, the Go board is larger and the possible positions are greater but then there are only three possible ``cells'' to consider: the first player's stone, the second player's stone and an empty cell. That should be easier to manage than the job we are asking computer's nowadays to do: recognize people from their faces. I believe computers can match fingerprints easily today. Go should be a walk in the park.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (4, Interesting)

Moridineas (213502) | about 12 years ago | (#4488560)

Very well said. To add a couple things:

On the average chess has a branching factor of about 40 (or 35--reports vary). This means that on average for each players turn there are that many possible moves. So to build a game tree, that's how fast the tree will grow.

Go on the other hand as you state, starts with an empty board, and so even if you're playing on a child sized board of 9x9 (standard sized boards are a good bit bigger than this, I forget the size, at least 13x13 i believe) you have 81 possible moves at first. And you do make a good point that this branching factor drops dramatically as the game advances.

there's nothing inherent to Go that makes it a better game, "harder", or anything of the sort--no magic reason for why computer AI's suck. It's simply a ton less energy being put into Go (when was the last time you heard of a MASSIVE super computer being built for Go?) and the massive branching factor.

My personal feeling is that within 20 years Go AI with be at a similiar level as we are at with chess today--just my own guess.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (2)

ImaLamer (260199) | about 12 years ago | (#4488581)

If you ask a Korean, you'll be told that it's Korean

Well, technically... Japan is Korean.

Japan was settled by peoples who slowly moved up onto the islands via migration from Korea.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (2)

aminorex (141494) | about 12 years ago | (#4488599)

According to the Chinese historians, Chin Shih Huang-Ti sent an expedition to seek out legendary
eastern islands shortly before the birth of Christ.
They never came back, and hence Japan was populated. I suppose that differential genetic analysis could resolve the conflicting accounts, if you accepted
the results, but given the absymmal record of
phylogenetic morphology, I can't consider any such
results to be clearly determinative.

This is tangential, not offtopic:P

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (5, Interesting)

targo (409974) | about 12 years ago | (#4488223)

The problem with this is that defining "perfect play" is next to impossible in chess. Different players have very different playing styles, and if player A is strong against player B, and B is strong against C then it doesn't necessarily mean that A could defeat C.
Computers are strong in tactical play, humans in positional; people have argued for ages, which is better, so far both styles have their proponents among grandmasters.
And we can't really find an answer to this question unless we compute the entire game tree of chess, but this is impossible, even if you used all the atoms in the Universe to track the nodes in your tree.

Btw, the concern that chess as a game will exhaust itself and in the future grandmasters will always tie, has been expressed many times in the past. So far they have all been proven wrong, usually when some prodigy (Tal, Fischer, Kasparov) has come forward and brought new innovations with him. Computer chess is in a similar position, bringing many new ideas to the chess world, and countless new chess theories have been created by analyzing how computers play.
So I am quite optimistic about the future of chess, there is certainly no end in sight for now.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488225)

That's not known to be true. For a particular game, either the one moves first, or the one who moves second might (if the combinatorics are fully worked out) always win in perfect play.

> If two chess players play perfectly, then the game will always result in a tie.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (4, Informative)

Nigel Stepp (446) | about 12 years ago | (#4488237)

I believe that this is just a conjecture. That is, no one knows whether or not is possible to force a draw, or whether it is possible to force a win. To really know this answer, one would have to know the game tree (or some equivalent).

Go does have a much bigger game tree, due to its much large branching factor. It was Chinese by origin.

Actually, he's right (1, Interesting)

etymxris (121288) | about 12 years ago | (#4488341)

It doesn't matter. Only one of two outcomes is possible:

  1. White can force a win or
  2. Black can force a draw

If White can force a win, then, in a match of 8 games, each side will have four wins. If Black can force a draw, then in a match of 8 games there will be eight draws.

But as other people have said, determining whether a draw or win can be forced is computationally infeasible. So the game will be interesting for a while.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (1)

HeghmoH (13204) | about 12 years ago | (#4488297)

I seem to recall something from game theory where in a game like Chess, where the game is deterministic, the players move sequentially, and it's illegal to draw, then if both sides play a perfect game, the side that goes first will always win. Or something like that. Does anybody know what I'm talking about, and is this right?

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (1)

piscine (179025) | about 12 years ago | (#4488402)

I seem to recall something from game theory where in a game like Chess, where the game is deterministic, the players move sequentially, and it's illegal to draw, then if both sides play a perfect game, the side that goes first will always win

Incorrect, as the starting position could be a reciprocal zugzwang (not uncommon in chess endings).

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488307)

If both become too good, they will tie all the time

More realistically, "man" will stay more or less the same strength, and "machine" will continue improving. We'll see machines either winning or tieing, never losing. Actually if man doesn't improve at all we will start to see *less* drawn games as the ELO gap widens between man and machine.

Re:We can at best hope a tie.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488321)

It has not yet been proven that with perfect play a game of chess will always result in a draw.

Given the truly vast number of positions that make up the finite number of moves available under the normal rules for chess, and, assuming that such a mapping did exist, the difficulties inherent in calculating which precise moves happen to constitute 'perfect', this is likely to remain true for some time.

Not True (1)

DougJohnson (595893) | about 12 years ago | (#4488537)

There's a lot of speculation about this in the AI world. I'm currently in a graduate ai course that was following this reasonably closely, and we believe that given perfect play, it is quite likely that white will win every time.


The problem is that the amount of moves is extremely large, so the time when a "perfect" player comes up is probably a LONG way away.


Most games with perfect information (where each side knows the entire set of information) and without randomness are likely to have a perfect solution.... ie White can force a win in 97 moves.. or something

Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (4, Interesting)

skydude_20 (307538) | about 12 years ago | (#4488172)

Is it just me, or did someone forget the current score: Machines (1-0-1), Humans (0-1-1).

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (5, Funny)

Namtar (618076) | about 12 years ago | (#4488184)

Chess is nothing. I'll be impressed when an A.I. chat bot can talk a girl into a date. This would be a tool every slashdotter could appreciate.

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488196)

That depends... Are we talking intelligent girls, or a/s/l? girls?

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (5, Funny)

bdesham (533897) | about 12 years ago | (#4488200)

I'll be impressed when an A.I. chat bot can talk a girl into a date. This would be a tool every slashdotter could appreciate.
So I could be dumped for an A.I. chat bot. And I thought I couldn't get any lower...

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (2)

Bastian (66383) | about 12 years ago | (#4488480)

Hey, at least you would't be the poor sap who has to get dumped for the A.I. chat bot that HE WROTE.

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (2)

PacoTaco (577292) | about 12 years ago | (#4488603)

Yeah, the bot would know not to mention Linux on the first date.

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (1)

agentZ (210674) | about 12 years ago | (#4488203)

Are we going to do Turing tests on #hotsex?

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (2, Insightful)

EggplantMan (549708) | about 12 years ago | (#4488428)

Most participants in #hotsex would fail the Turing test regardless.

+1 Funny (1)

schlach (228441) | about 12 years ago | (#4488515)

lol =p

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (2)

PacoTaco (577292) | about 12 years ago | (#4488609)

The real test would be BSD-related Slashdot posts.

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (2)

Cyno01 (573917) | about 12 years ago | (#4488482)

hey, thats not funny, SMARTERCHILD stole my girlfriend!

Re:Machines Not Yet Our Masters? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488239)

i thought the score was even: 1W-1L-1T for man and machine. didn't kasparov beat the computer in the first game?

Not masters, but equals (5, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | about 12 years ago | (#4488189)

At least in the chess arena, that is. And chances are the Fritz can get smarter after a few new upgrades whereas Kramnik gets slower over the years.

Machines won't be nearly our equals in life for some time though, as the fixed-rules of a chess tournament bears little resemblance to the forsight, logic, and sometimes blind chance of human life.

Too many people seem to think of Terminator2-esque type scenarios with intelligent machines when talking about this, but Chess is just a little sandbox in a big beach.

Re:Not masters, but equals (3, Funny)

uchian (454825) | about 12 years ago | (#4488299)

Machines aren't ruled by emotion, which gives them a distinct advantage over humans.

Think, it means they don't get scared, intimidated. They never make a mistake due to hasty judgement, or the pressure of the situation.

And to counter the Terminator 2 arguments, machines would not get jealous at being sub-serviant, they would not care about being controlled by humans... Unless some human programmed them to act like that.

But how logical would it be for someone to do that? Ummm... err... humans not logical, erm... doh

Re:Not masters, but equals (3, Informative)

dh003i (203189) | about 12 years ago | (#4488369)

Machines won't EVER EVER be our equal's in life. Even the simplest of organisms (E. coli, for example) are trillions of times more complex and sophisticated than our most advanced computers.

You seem to imply that eventually computers will equal human being's in life. Trying to say that a computer could ever equal a human being is silly and ignorant. The human brain is infinitely more complex than any computer could ever be; a single neuron is more complex than a computer could ever be.

You simply cannot do in the time that humans have, what took evolution over a billion years to accomplish.

Re:Not masters, but equals (3, Insightful)

Xeriar (456730) | about 12 years ago | (#4488442)

Machines won't EVER EVER be our equal's in life. Even the simplest of organisms (E. coli, for example) are trillions of times more complex and sophisticated than our most advanced computers.

An E. coli bacterium doesn't even have trillions of working parts, or even billions or millions. Junk DNA doesn't count here.

As opposed to our most powerful computers, where any of trillions (this time literally) of transistors (which in and of themselves aren't the simplest devices on Earth) can potentially affect any other transistor in the system a few hundred steps down the road, going at a billion steps a second.

Just because we can't replicate all of the steps to reconstruct a bacterium doesn't mean we haven't made anything more complex than it.

Re:Not masters, but equals (4, Informative)

dh003i (203189) | about 12 years ago | (#4488476)

Have you ever taken a college biology course?

Sure, a bacteria doesn't have trillions of individual parts. Neither do human beings; there are only 30,000 - 100,000 genes.

But E. coli are trillions of times more complex than our most complex computers, and human beings are trillions of times more complicated than E. coli.

E. coli may not have many different "working parts" in your layman terms, but the way in which those finite parts interact and are regulated and modulated are infinitely complex; far more complex than any computer system we have -- more complex than the entire internet, basically a set of interconnected computer systems.

Take a look at the 3D structure of one protein. It's pretty complicated; so complicated, in fact, that the most powerful computers we have can't accurately predict how a protein sequence will fold. That's just one protein. Proteins synthesis is regulated by both transcription (DNA -> RNA) and translation (RNA -> protein), as well as by post-translational factors, such as other proteins which bind to and modify the activity of your protein. A kinase is a protein which phosphorylates other proteins; depending on which cyclin a cyclin-dependant kinase is bound to, it may phosphorylate different proteins.

Sure, the number of parts of even the most complicated living systems (human beings) are very finite (100,000 genes max). But they way in which they interact and are regulated is infinitely complex.

Computers may be great, but they're simple -- very simple. Even a layman can, with a little bit of education, understand exactly how a computer works. But the most intelligent biologist alive isn't anywhere near understanding how a single cell works in its entirity.

Before you go about demeaning any form of life to being simpler than a computer, perhaps you should try to gain some understanding of the complexity of even the most "simple" life.

Re:Not masters, but equals (1)

jacquesm (154384) | about 12 years ago | (#4488495)

I once read an interesting quote that nicely sums up your point:

A cockroach... it sucks as a life form but as technology it would blow the state of the art totally away

First Chess machine (5, Interesting)

acehole (174372) | about 12 years ago | (#4488191)

Slightly diverting from the topic, the first Chess Machine (not computer) was a box that was carted around the country (england), didnt actually have any mechanical parts, just a little midget inside the box moving the peices.

Mainly it was used by con artists selling the machine to the rich (without the midget inside).

Thankfully things have come a little way since then...

Re:First Chess machine (4, Interesting)

zulux (112259) | about 12 years ago | (#4488259)

Here's a good description of 'the Turk' [museumofhoaxes.com]

Pretty cool hoax.

Re:First Chess machine (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488437)

Thankfully things have come a little way since then...

Why? Is the midget included now?

Re:First Chess machine (2)

Cyno01 (573917) | about 12 years ago | (#4488490)

when explaining code to us, my compsci teacher would always tell us that it was just like this inside the computer, with a little midget writing on a whiteboard...

It still hasn't changed. (1)

baywulf (214371) | about 12 years ago | (#4488530)

I have a chess program (gnuchess) played by an ELF binary on my Linux box.

Too bad... (4, Interesting)

403Forbidden (610018) | about 12 years ago | (#4488192)

Too bad Deep Blue is in pieces now, I would have really liked to see the two go against eachother.

Re:Too bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488273)

That would actually be interesting. I wonder if a faster chess computer would always beat a slower chess computer.

Re:Too bad... (1)

mtec (572168) | about 12 years ago | (#4488274)

why did IBM dismantle DB?
Anyone know?

Re:Too bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488352)

The "Marilyn Monroe" effect. See, five years after its death, people still say "Too bad Deep Blue is in pieces now" or "It's a real shame that IBM dismantled it".

Re:Too bad... (2)

stienman (51024) | about 12 years ago | (#4488313)

Fritz beat Deep Blue awhile ago. You can buy Deep Fritz software, which is just a multiprocessor version of Fritz, and supports up to 32 processors. A second processor improves performance by about 86%.

-Adam

Re:Too bad... (4, Informative)

stienman (51024) | about 12 years ago | (#4488358)

I should qualify this. On the Fritz software page [chessbase.com] you'll see this statement under FRITZ 6 The talking chess program

Fritz is very easy to use but very difficult to beat. Since 1993 the program has been the enfant terrible of the chess scene. In Munich it won the strongest blitz tournament of all times, together with world champion Garry Kasparov; in 1995 it won the world computer chess championship in Hong Kong, ahead of Deep Blue; in July 1999 it won the super-strong Frankfurt Masters and thus qualified to play against the world champion next year. Fritz is used by all top players in the world and is the most popular chess program amongst tournament players.

Winning the world computer chess championship ahead of deep blue is not the same as playing against deep blue. It could easily be said that Fritz found a particular weakness in another program which found a particular weakness in Deep Blue. That Fritz might find that same weakness or another one against deep blue itself is unknown unless they did play against each other. But this is how most sporting games are held in modern times. Computers, however, are less susceptable to time, weather, and other variations humans are so subject to that make us play 'a bad game'.

-Adam

Re:Too bad... (3, Informative)

ramzak2k (596734) | about 12 years ago | (#4488351)

now that you compare the two, you remind me of a good article [msnbc.com] I read on msnbc a while ago.

The Comparison:
Deep Blue could analyze 200 million possible moves per second, while Deep Fritz looked at a paltry 3 million moves a second. However, programmers said Fritz was designed to look more intelligently at the moves ahead, rather than using Deep Blue's brute-force method.

And What happened to Deep Blue:
Back in 1997, IBM created Deep Blue specifically for the Kasparov challenge, using 200 special-purpose chess chips, 32 processors and a score of programmers. Since the system didn't have commercial value, it was broken down after the match. In contrast, Deep Fritz is a souped-up version of a commercially available product published by the German company Chessbase, running on eight 900mHz Pentium chips.

Re:Too bad... (1)

dimator (71399) | about 12 years ago | (#4488528)

900mHz Pentium chips.

milli-hertz?

upping the "playing strength" (or volume) (4, Funny)

sssmashy (612587) | about 12 years ago | (#4488193)

"We've learned a lot from this, and there is much we can do to increase Fritz's playing strength." Frans Morsch, creator of Fritz

For instance, they could install louder speakers to increase the effectiveness of Fritz's Shakespearian heckling ...

Yeah but Fritz isn't the best player (3, Insightful)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | about 12 years ago | (#4488194)

Deep Blue kicked Fritz's ass, and Kasparov; and there are good reasons for thinking that Kramnik would lose too. It's a real shame that IBM dismantled it...

Re:Yeah but Fritz isn't the best player (2)

Loki_1929 (550940) | about 12 years ago | (#4488318)

"Deep Blue kicked Fritz's ass, and Kasparov; and there are good reasons for thinking that Kramnik would lose too. It's a real shame that IBM dismantled it.."

Fritz beat Deep Blue, mainly because Blue's program wasn't very optimized; it calculated for the same positions multiple times, thereby erasing any advantage it had in the number of moves it could process per second.

Re:Yeah but Fritz isn't the best player (3, Informative)

Loki_1929 (550940) | about 12 years ago | (#4488347)

Pardon me, I didn't even include a link; how rude.

Here's the link [cnn.com] , and here's the quote:

"Deep Fritz has previously beaten Deep Blue, Kasparov and World Chess Federation champion Vishwanathan Anand."

A draw after 21 moves only? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488219)

Looks like Kramnik was tired, so he proposed a draw, and the Fritz team didn't have the guts to say:

"No Kramnik, we're not done yet, you're tired and you have almost no time left, we'll play this till the end."

They prefered to stay in nice terms with Kramnik than being truly competitive. Very lame.

Re:A draw after 21 moves only? (0)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | about 12 years ago | (#4488316)

I would like to see it go to the bitter end. Too many ties. I wonder if the Fritz team had statistics of possible outcomes. Maybe Kramnik would have won :P

Re:A draw after 21 moves only? (2, Funny)

theperplepigg (599224) | about 12 years ago | (#4488483)

that particular match did have the possibility of kramnik tying. But, he ran out of time, due in large part to fritz heckling him. see article from yesterday here [slashdot.org] an the link to the script of the heckling [chessbase.com] during that match. a humorous read.

--paul

Obligatory, if not horrific joke.. (-1, Troll)

Loki_1929 (550940) | about 12 years ago | (#4488258)

(Please have 'show link domains' on)

All your ... [chessbase.com] are belong to us [slashdot.org] .

The True Master (5, Funny)

russellh (547685) | about 12 years ago | (#4488281)

Oh I think machines have been our master for a long time. Especially during the floppy era (Please insert disk #18, press any key to continue...). Can we ignore their requests? I think not. Do they ignore ours? They don't even listen! No amount of threats or yelling at the computer will change their behavior, and yet their simple, calm request for the any key causes fear and panic throughout humanity. In addition, we have served the machines very well by evolving them quite rapidly, and they have returned the favor with addictive mind-numbing games for us. They get smarter while we get dumber. Hmm..

On the subject of changing game... (2, Funny)

Cheese Cracker (615402) | about 12 years ago | (#4488290)

How about letting Bill Gates play russian roulette against a Linux machine? It would be cool if it was
going to be featured on a reality show on TV. :)

Re:On the subject of changing game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488416)

No. Bill and Torvalds. Russian roulette.

Judges, a ruling... NOW!@#

Re:On the subject of changing game... (1)

Cheese Cracker (615402) | about 12 years ago | (#4488445)

Bill and Torvalds.

Bill being the machine?

Kramnik shoulda asked for a tiebreaker... (5, Funny)

mtec (572168) | about 12 years ago | (#4488302)

A game of checkers.

Re:Kramnik shoulda asked for a tiebreaker... (1)

archen (447353) | about 12 years ago | (#4488405)

think I'd be more inclined to paper-rock-scissors

"no hands? Oh so sorry.."

Re:Kramnik shoulda asked for a tiebreaker... (2)

dimator (71399) | about 12 years ago | (#4488540)

Cake or Death? Cake Please!

Hmm... Eddie Izzard?

Re:Kramnik shoulda asked for a tiebreaker... (1)

mtec (572168) | about 12 years ago | (#4488572)

Izzackly

Izzards (2)

ImaLamer (260199) | about 12 years ago | (#4488597)

Death, no! no! cake!

Ahh you said death first... oh ok cake.

---

Cake or death?

Cake

Sorry we're out of cake

So my choices are 'or death'?

---

Tastes of humans sir.

---

Vicar, I've done many bad things

Well, so have I

---

Ok, I'm done.

What's the big deal? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488304)

Machines have been better than us at quite a few things for a number of years. They are all unsophisticated stuff. No matter what many would have us believe, chess is another of those unsophisticated undertakings where brute force goes a long way.

Just as people carry on competing against each other to see who is the fastest runner, despite of the fact that even a 50cc motorbike would beat them hands down, they will carry on competing at chess - despite the fact that machines are already probably better at it. The time has come to put chess where it belongs: a more or less interesting game, but very, very far from the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement.

Re:What's the big deal? (1)

slow_motion_boy (551504) | about 12 years ago | (#4488383)

I really think this should have been modded up.

It goes deeper than chess knowledge (5, Insightful)

targo (409974) | about 12 years ago | (#4488310)

I would still say that Kramnik is probably the stronger player when it comes to pure chess knowledge but there was more to the match than just that.
In the first games, Kramnik played very solid, positional chess, and slowly but surely, just walked over Fritz.
In game 5, Kramnik made his first human error, blundering in a difficult position, and losing immediately because of this. It might have been because he was tired or for thousand other reasons, we don't know.

But we know human weakness #1: we make mistakes, and can't handle every similar situation perfectly, computers can.

In game 6, Kramnik went for a gamble, sacrificing material to get a decisive attack. Kasparov had made the same mistake when playing against Deep Blue - his attack would have been devastating against any human, but one should never, ever attempt a tactical gamble against a computer because that's where they are strongest.

Human weakness #2: we underestimate our partners, computers don't.

In games 7 and 8, the score was tied, and Kramnik played very cautiously, clearly being afraid of a loss. If he had played at his best and avoided mistakes that he had made in games 5 and 6, he might have won, but he decided not to go for it.

Human weakness #3: we get scared, computers don't.

Re:It goes deeper than chess knowledge (5, Funny)

Omega Hacker (6676) | about 12 years ago | (#4488373)

> Human weakness #3: we get scared, computers don't.

You had a pretty good set of arguments going there, until this last one. And I quote:

"No disassemble Johnny Five!"

Re:It goes deeper than chess knowledge (2)

targo (409974) | about 12 years ago | (#4488418)


> Human weakness #3: we get scared, computers don't.

You had a pretty good set of arguments going there, until this last one. And I quote:

"No disassemble Johnny Five!"


You just wait until Deep Punch kicks Lennox Lewis' ass. Then we will all be very, very scared.

Re:It goes deeper than chess knowledge (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488374)

Human weakness #4: we cannot scale by Beowulf clustering, computers can.

Re:It goes deeper than chess knowledge (2)

moebius_4d (26199) | about 12 years ago | (#4488438)

> If he had played at his best and avoided mistakes that he had made in games 5 and 6, he might have won, but he decided not to go for it.

Except that Fritz was playing black in 6, and at this level, drawing with black is a win. Kranmik was trying not to lose the tournament in 5 and 6, but he sure lost game 6.

Re:It goes deeper than chess knowledge (2)

SectoidRandom (87023) | about 12 years ago | (#4488554)

I believe that you made the point quite well why humans are and (for now at least) will be always better. Kramnik lost only through mistakes, most inteligent people dont make the same mistake twice, that is our biggest strength, that we learn quickly, and in this case why he should have won.

Kramnik walked over the computer in the first games because he played "against a computer" not like Kasparov who played "against a human" in tactics that is. He played a completly different game to his usual tactics, tactics designed to beat Fritz and only Fritz, that's where Kasparov lost. Unfortunatly the mistakes Kramnik made later, (maybe he got cockey?) cost him the out-right win.

Of course in the future the programmers will take this into account, as will Kramnik or Kasparov or whoever..

Tie?!? WTF (4, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | about 12 years ago | (#4488320)

WTF! No overtime? No sudden death chess?

A Tie?!? How unAmerican is that?

Oh, wait.

Re:Tie?!? WTF (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488584)

Tell that to Bud Selig.

Tying?! There's no tying in baseball!!!

In related news... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488342)

... Kramnik was stumped by the ATM machine as he attempted to withdraw enough money for lunch.

Beshrew me, the knight's in admirable fooling. (1)

infonography (566403) | about 12 years ago | (#4488361)

More amusing was the Shakespearean Chatter According to this Article [chessbase.com] in Game SIX, a prank by the Fritz team had the computer using the Shakespearean Chatter Files. Nice to see some fun in something like this.

A rare jest methinks....

Note to self - Ok I can't confirm this but who can ever on the net??

Was the match 'fair' this time? (5, Interesting)

Ryu2 (89645) | about 12 years ago | (#4488384)

One oft-quoted complaint by Kasaarov, of the last man-vs-machine match against Deep Blue, was that Deep Blue was programmed with the moves of all of Kasparov's past championship games so it could ostensibly analyze the strategies used by Kasparov beforehand, while Kasparov was not allowed to look at Deep Blue's previous games.

Anyone know if this was ever an issue in this current tournament?

Re:Was the match 'fair' this time? (1)

heychris (587825) | about 12 years ago | (#4488455)

If I recall correctly, yes, Kramnik did have access to games that Fritz had played previously. Also, Fritz is actually a commercial program that elite chess players can buy for training. Of course, I'd love to know what hardware Fritz is running on...

CC

comparing apples to oranges (5, Insightful)

jacquesm (154384) | about 12 years ago | (#4488385)

There was a time when people put a lot of weight on a computer being able to play a high level of chess, but that was before the advent of a strategy that is best characterised as massive parallel brute force solution of a game with a very large tree of possible moves.

Nowadays, there really is very little point. You are comparing apples to oranges when you allow the one party a nearly infinite budget of cycles and power and allow the other party 18 cycles per second on a biological processor that is running on a couple of oranges for a whole games' worth of computation.

I we want to make this kind of competition interesting again I think there really should be limits on the power and cycle budget of the machine involved in order to get back to the essence of the whole game theory thing, which is not going flat out for the maximum number of ply you can look ahead but to try to quantify a strategic advantage.

Unfortunately that will not make for interesting press releases.

To me the current 'matches' look a little bit like sledgehammers being used to crack nuts. It does work, but there is no real output. All this stuff proves is that if you throw enough money at a problem you can force the outcome of something as trivial as a game of chess.

It does not advance the state of the art in computing at all.

Re:comparing apples to oranges (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488462)

In the qualifying tournament to decide which program would fight Kramnik, they had all programs run on the same hardware. What more can you ask for?

In other words, the "apples only" match shows the advance in the state of the art in computing. The apple and orange match is just spectacular fun.

Hardware and OS it was running on? (3, Interesting)

Ryu2 (89645) | about 12 years ago | (#4488413)

Anyone know? Not trying to start a flame war here, rather, just curious.

I know that Fritz is supposed to be much more intelligent in its search-tree pruning than Deep Blue was, and not require so much computational power.

Fritz runs on an eight-processor Compaq machine (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488475)

Computers playing with humans (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4488451)

One kind of chess that has been experimented with a bit is where humans play each other, but each has the aid of a computer during the game. Shirov and Anand played a short match like this last year (or the year before), and it seems like an interesting concept. You have the normal human strenghts in judgement, strategy, and intuition coupled with a tool that can process millions of tactical possibilities.

The average slashdotter seems pretty certain of the day when programs, these unbeatable machines, will be able to simply trounce the best humans in one on one competition. But what about a future match with the best chess computer against a top notch grandmaster with his own pc, even a weaker program? Do you people honestly think that human knowledge will simply be obviated by brute force processing power?

It's not Man vs. Machine... (5, Insightful)

Will_Malverson (105796) | about 12 years ago | (#4488467)

...It's Man vs. Nature.

Kramnik and Kasparov are the best chess players that nature can produce. Meanwhile, humans have built Fritz and Deep Blue. We aren't in the process of losing to machines. We're in the process of beating nature.

Hm, a draw... (2, Insightful)

travdaddy (527149) | about 12 years ago | (#4488531)

There's always something disappointing about a draw. I would have liked to see a clear winner, either man or machine, but it wasn't meant to be. That being said, I am not disappointed with the overall match. I think it showed human innovation in two ways, one in the powerful AI technology developed over the years used by Deep Fritz, and one in Kramnik being able to attack Fritz's weaknesses.

What's more disappointing than the draw, however, is that this match was not nearly as publicized as Deep Blue vs. Kasparov.

Soon: Kasparov vs "Junior" in Jerusalem (2, Informative)

eyal_bd (595498) | about 12 years ago | (#4488545)

"Junior" is world champion for computers.
Kasparov is (still) the best player in the world.

Kasparov will have to reduce the heat on the board. He does it successfully against human players but computers are more accurate in complicated positions.

I think that Kasparov has a good chance to win.

Kramnick Limerick (5, Funny)

mtec (572168) | about 12 years ago | (#4488595)

There was a young Russian named Kramnick
Who at chess was just real frickin' slick,
He came back in a blitz
But could only tie Fritz
he exclaimed "just a tie, and my wallet's so thick!"

(sorry)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?