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!

Humans Hold Off the Machines... For Now

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

Games 338

Murr writes "The six game match between Gary Kasparov and the Deep Junior program ended in a draw today. Kasparov won game 1 and lost game 3 to a blunder, while the other 4 games were drawn. While the quality of play was not outstanding, after the recent matches of Kramnik and Kasparov against commercial programs running on (high end) commodity hardware, it's becoming apparent that chess programs are getting quite competitive with top human players."

cancel ×

338 comments

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

Fuck the computers (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259485)

It's time for the humans to rise up and take the world back!

Kasprov chickened out (1)

Encomium (568657) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259490)

As one article I read put it, today logic lost out to human fear. This was not the culmination of a battle of wits but the triumph of human fear, not that I can blame Kasprov to much...

fp (-1)

grioghar (228683) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259492)

I feel a Terminator-like event on the horizon. First chess, then our souls...

King me... (0, Offtopic)

dynoman7 (188589) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259493)

I've got nothing.

Yay Gary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259496)

IBM sucks!

my dick (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259508)

hurts like a cracker in the mouth of a dog with big tongue and no saliva

First move!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259510)

Prawn to e4

first post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259513)

first post ;-)

Go? (4, Interesting)

smoondog (85133) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259514)

While computer programs that can play chess are quite sophisticated, Go is a really cool game that is very difficult to play well (from a computer's perspective). I think computer vs human Go matches would be much more interesting now,

-Sean

lol (-1, Offtopic)

Slashdotess (605550) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259519)

/. sux the bux deeez
lol teh matrix is here

Yeah, but... (1)

dynoman7 (188589) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259520)

...it's becoming apparent that chess programs are getting quite competitive with top human players.

yeah, but at what cost? and anoter thing...why won't someone make the bots in q3a more competitive with those instagig rail gods?

First move! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259522)

Pawn to king's knight

Why wasn't it made 7 games? (1, Interesting)

BJZQ8 (644168) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259525)

Is it just me, or is it silly to only do 6 games, so there was a possibility of a tie? Another game would have been the decision-maker. Then again, the pressure put on Kasparov might have been excessive, since obviously the computer wouldn't have to deal with ANY pressure...just another game.

Yes (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259526)

But the idiots at gnome [gnome.org] still can't write a simple file selector. Something thats been in windows since 95, and kde sinve 2.0. I hope the gnome project dies in its own feces because it SUCKS.

What about GO? (1)

kungfuBreaks (537144) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259527)

Most of these programs seem to be using various "brute force" optimization techniques...Personally, I'd like to see a program that could compete with high-ranking GO players on equal footing.

Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259529)

Chess is fun and all, but isn't it about time to put technology to actual use? AIDs, cancer, something else that could really use a cure?

Later this afternoon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259531)

"Mr. Kasparov? My name is Kyle Reese. Come with me if you want to live!"

FP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259534)

testing

and there he was (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259536)

no chicken, no turkey, no burger. just the raw power of pussy in my mouth. it tastes so elegant and wonderful, that i tend to bite down. Juices run through my teeth and i swish the creamy solution through my mouth.

Then I pull out a jackhammer and shove it up her ass and pound her with no mercy.

pop goes the weasel.

sdf (-1, Offtopic)

Slashdotess (605550) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259543)

dsaf

You did it again, Michael (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259546)

No readable comments, baby.

This is more like humans vs. humans.... (1)

nvrrobx (71970) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259547)

Now, the computer may have actually played the game, but a team of human programmers had to "teach" it how to play.

how about holding off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259555)

this f1r$t p0st??

fp! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259556)

fp!

1. pxfp++!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259560)

pxfp++!!

Yeah... (1)

soulctcher (581951) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259564)

and I have a difficult time beating Chessmaster 1000 on my C64!

Man Vs. Man-Made Machine (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259568)

it's becoming apparent that chess programs are getting quite competitive with top human players

I should think so, especially when the computer is programmed in part by chess experts, and plays more like a chess player than a computer.

From the NY Times [nytimes.com] :

On the 10th move, Deep Junior flamboyantly sacrificed its dark-squared bishop for a lowly pawn to lure Kasparov's king into the open. "When a machine willingly gives up a piece against you, one thought goes through your head," said Mr. Greengard. "It's a thought you can't print in a family newspaper. Your second thought is, `So, should I just resign?' "

Frist Psot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259569)

Woo!

aftenposten (-1)

Trolling Thunder (639121) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259570)

Hey ass-bandits. I said aftenposten. w00t!

FP! (0, Offtopic)

chamenos (541447) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259571)

could it really be? oh no!

Reason for the draw. (5, Interesting)

Rewtie (552738) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259574)

I watched this last night on ESPN or ESPN2.

The reason Kasparov gave for the match, and the championship ending in a draw was that it was better to draw than to lose.

He claimed that while a human player would have the memories of past moves and past games to deal with, the computer would not. The computer simply makes the 'best' move for the given situation, and then waits to do the same thing again. The human player would consider moves he/she made in the past, compare the situation to others they may have had, second-guess the moves they might have made, and so forth.

It was interesting to see Kasparov attack, and then ask for a draw (which was denied) and then, two moves later, end the game in a draw.

mandatory go plug (5, Informative)

dollargonzo (519030) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259577)

chess is nice, but most progresses in chess have been due to speed increases in hardware and optimizations, hence allowing the computer to overpower the human with depth of search. On top of that, the evaluation functions are rather primitive, with lots of factors, but fail rather miserably without a great depth of search. New developments such as Logistello's statistical forward alpha cutoff called multiprobcut [ualberta.ca] is the interesting development, IMHO

Boring (1)

funkhauser (537592) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259578)

Computers have conquered chess. So what? It's a game in which brute force techniques are quite effective. When we have to black out the sky to keep Deep Fritz and his friends from beating up old men playing chess in the park, you might need to worry. But this doesn't really matter.

And what's the deal with the draws? Four draws out of six games? That just makes chess seem really inane to me. The requisite Go reference: With komi rules, there are never any draws (White gets at least 0.5 points, usually 5.5, for going second, thus eliminating draws), and the whole man vs. machine thing gets much more interesting, because brute force just doesn't work very well in Go!

WHY THe FSCK (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259580)

CAN'T I SEE THE COMMENTS?????? ( i know it's lilke yelling - I AM yelling... )

Hrmm... (1)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259581)

Man makes machine.. man uses machine.. man teaches machine chess.. machine beats man at chess.. machine conquers world..

So thats where the matrix came from..

wassabi! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259583)

Taco, suck on my maki roll. I realize you had to sell the server farm for food... just please get the 486s you replaced it with configured right BEFORE you take them online. There is always Ramen for while you are working on that.

Good or bad (1)

Mr. Mysterious (545880) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259587)

Good or bad if the machine beats us?

This is the limit. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259588)

I cant believe you fucks read all this gayness.

This story shouts "GAY, GAY, GH3Y"
fuck... i cant believe something can be so fucking gh3y..

w00t

Kasparov played cautiously... (3, Insightful)

$$$$$exyGal (638164) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259595)

I've been keeping track of those games, and what I found most amazing was that Kasparov played so cautiously. If the last game he played would have been against a human player (who played the same moves), I don't think he would have accepted the draw. It seems he accepted the draw because he was psychologically spent, especially when thinking of his loss to Deep Blue several years ago.

--naked [slashdot.org]

This one... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259599)

Fp to all my homies at www.massivesix.com

mandatory othello/go plug (-1, Redundant)

dollargonzo (519030) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259601)

chess is nice, but most progresses in chess have been due to speed increases in hardware and optimizations, hence allowing the computer to overpower the human with depth of search. On top of that, the evaluation functions are rather primitive, with lots of factors, but fail rather miserably without a great depth of search. New developments such as Logistello's statistical forward alpha cutoff called multiprobcut [ualberta.ca] is the interesting development, IMHO

Damn machines... (-1)

cerskine (202611) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259605)

See subject

Lost to a blunder? (1)

Thurog (592871) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259606)

Looks like the Sergej Bubka tactic to me: Make it a draw to keep the suspense and rise the stakes.

Hello KEvin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259608)

I hacked in the internode webalizing server!S

did i miss something important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259613)

so?

its easy to beat a human player with chess...

just have the program iterate through every possible outcome generated by every possible move, rule out the ones that end in "me" losing, and make a move that is most probible in me winning.

then keep re-doing it each turn.

cake.

Moves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259615)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Kh1 Bd7 10.Be3 Bc6 11.Bf3 Nbd7 12.a4 b6 13.Qd3 Bb7 14.h3 Rc8 15.Rad1 h6 16.Rfe1 Qc7 17.g3 Rfd8 19.Kh2 Re8 19.Re2 Qc4 20.Qxc4 Rxc4 21.Nd2 Rc7 22.Bg2 Rec8 23.Nb3 Rxc3 24.bxc3 Bxe4 25.Bc1Bxg2 26.Kxg2 Rxc3 27.Ba3 Ne8 28.f4 1/2-1/2

Does not compute

Does it really matter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259616)

Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

SkyNet Anyone? (1)

1stflight (48795) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259617)

So if Chess is a game of tactics and logic, the next wars we fight might be won or lost by machine instead of Generals. Is it me or is there something unetical about that?

The 6 games in PGN format (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259618)

{ Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 35.7). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 35.7). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 35.7). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 35.7). Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 35.7). Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account. }

[Event "FIDE Man vs Machine WCh"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.01.26"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Black "Deep Junior"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D45"]
[PlyCount "53"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 Bd6 7. g4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 b6 9. e4 e5 10. g5 Nh5 11. Be3 O-O 12. O-O-O Qc7 13. d5 b5 14. dxc6 bxc4 15. Nb5 Qxc6 16. Nxd6 Bb7 17. Qc3 Rae8 18. Nxe8 Rxe8 19. Rhe1 Qb5 20. Nd2 Rc8 21. Kb1 Nf8 22. Ka1 Ng6 23. Rc1 Ba6 24. b3 cxb3 25. Qxb3 Ra8 26. Qxb5 Bxb5 27. Rc7 1-0

[Event "FIDE Man vs Machine WCh"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.01.28"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Deep Junior"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B42"]
[PlyCount "60"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Bc5 6. Nb3 Ba7 7. c4 Nc6 8. Nc3 d6 9. O-O Nge7 10. Re1 O-O 11. Be3 e5 12. Nd5 a5 13. Rc1 a4 14. Bxa7 Rxa7 15. Nd2 Nd4 16. Qh5 Ne6 17. Rc3 Nc5 18. Bc2 Nxd5 19. exd5 g6 20. Qh6 f5 21. Ra3 Qf6 22. b4 axb3 23. Rxa7 bxc2 24. Rc1 e4 25. Rxc2 Qa1+ 26. Nf1 f4 27. Ra8 e3 28. fxe3 fxe3 29. Qxf8+ Kxf8 30. Rxc8+ Kf7 1/2-1/2

[Event "FIDE Man vs Machine WCh"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.01.30"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Black "Deep Junior"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D45"]
[PlyCount "72"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Qc2 b6 7. cxd5 exd5 8. Bd3 Be7 9. Bd2 O-O 10. g4 Nxg4 11. Rg1 Ndf6 12. h3 Nh6 13. e4 dxe4 14. Bxh6 exd3 15. Rxg7+ Kh8 16. Qxd3 Rg8 17. Rxg8+ Nxg8 18. Bf4 f6 19. O-O-O Bd6 20. Qe3 Bxf4 21. Qxf4 Bxh3 22. Rg1 Qb8 23. Qe3 Qd6 24. Nh4 Be6 25. Rh1 Rd8 26. Ng6+ Kg7 27. Nf4 Bf5 28. Nce2 Ne7 29. Ng3 Kh8 30. Nxf5 Nxf5 31. Qe4 Qd7 32. Rh5 Nxd4 33. Ng6+ Kg8 34. Ne7+ Kf8 35. Nd5 Qg7 36. Qxd4 Rxd5 0-1

[Event "FIDE Man vs Machine WCh"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.02.02"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Deep Junior"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B44"]
[PlyCount "121"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nb5 d6 6. c4 Nf6 7. N1c3 a6 8. Na3 Nd7 9. Nc2 Be7 10. Be2 b6 11. O-O Bb7 12. h3 O-O 13. Be3 Rc8 14. Qd2 Nce5 15. b3 Nf6 16. f3 Qc7 17. Rac1 Rfe8 18. a3 Ned7 19. Rfd1 Qb8 20. Bf2 Rcd8 21. b4 Ba8 22. a4 Rc8 23. Rb1 Qc7 24. a5 bxa5 25. b5 Bb7 26. b6 Qb8 27. Ne3 Nc5 28. Qa2 Nfd7 29. Na4 Ne5 30. Nc2 Ncd7 31. Nd4 Red8 32. Kh1 Nc6 33. Nxc6 Rxc6 34. Kg1 h6 35. Qa3 Rdc8 36. Bg3 Bf8 37. Qc3 Ne5 38. c5 Nd7 39. Qxa5 Nxc5 40. Nxc5 Rxc5 41. Qa4 R5c6 42. Bf2 d5 43. Bxa6 Bc5 44. Bxc5 Rxc5 45. Bxb7 Qxb7 46. exd5 exd5 47. Qa7 R5c7 48. Qxb7 Rxb7 49. Rxd5 Rc6 50. Rdb5 h5 51. Kf2 Re6 52. f4 g6 53. Kg3 Kg7 54. Kh4 Kh6 55. R1b4 Rd6 56. g3 f6 57. g4 hxg4 58. hxg4 Kg7 59. Rb3 Rc6 60. g5 f5 61. Rb1 1/2-1/2

[Event "FIDE Man vs Machine WCh"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.02.05"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Black "Deep Junior"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "E46"]
[PlyCount "38"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Nge2 Re8 8. O-O Bd6 9. a3 c6 10. Qc2 Bxh2+ 11. Kxh2 Ng4+ 12. Kg3 Qg5 13. f4 Qh5 14. Bd2 Qh2+ 15. Kf3 Qh4 16. Bxh7+ Kh8 17. Ng3 Nh2+ 18. Kf2 Ng4+ 19. Kf3 Nh2+ 1/2-1/2

[Event "FIDE Man vs Machine WCh"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.02.07"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Junior"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B92"]
[PlyCount "55"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Kh1 Bd7 10. Be3 Bc6 11. Bf3 Nbd7 12. a4 b6 13. Qd3 Bb7 14. h3 Rc8 15. Rad1 h6 16. Rfe1 Qc7 17. g3 Rfd8 18. Kh2 Re8 19. Re2 Qc4 20. Qxc4 Rxc4 21. Nd2 Rc7 22. Bg2 Rec8 23. Nb3 Rxc3 24. bxc3 Bxe4 25. Bc1 Bxg2 26. Kxg2 Rxc3 27. Ba3 Ne8 28. f4 1/2-1/2

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259619)

In Soviet Russia, chess game wins YOU.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259620)

pist post baznootches

Enough Chess! (1)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259621)

When's someone going to challange a computer to a DRINKING game?

One beer should be enough to tell who the real superior being is!
=Smidge=

Amazing AI. . . (1)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259623)

But they still can't make a Quake bot that won't run around a corner unarmed. . .

Wargame (1)

AyeFly (242460) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259625)

at least it wasnt a DOD computer.... there he would be Draw'ing in Tic Tac Toe!

would you like to play a game?

first post (0, Offtopic)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259626)

first post..

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (-1)

Bitter Old Man (572131) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259628)

First post gets YOU!

FIRST REPLY (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259657)

First reply!

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259630)

FIRST POST

w00t!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259631)

fp...
cnelson@littleaxe.k12.ok.us

known as a cube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259634)

or a Frinkahedron, in honor of it's discoverer. mmmhey.

Here's a summary from NYT (1)

LinuxMacWin (79859) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259637)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/08/nyregion/08CHES. html?ex=1045371600&en=11eae8fbdfc40aeb&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE

NYT reg reqd

It will be a sad day (1)

gorjusborg (603799) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259640)

It will be a sad day, when my Clie' can take on Kasparov and win.

What fun is it to see brute force prevail over thinking finesse?

so this means? (1)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259643)

how does this mean that computers are improving? it just means that we can write better code for makeing choices. yet all in all i don't see how this shows anything for a machine because it reviews thousands of moves a second were a human can probly do 5 a second at best. if it shows anything it shows that machines are further behind then we think. until machines can reason out choices like a human they will never be close. they got speed to their advantage that is all.

'Puters don't get tired (2, Interesting)

Grey Brick (311029) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259645)

Kasparov was probably tired after 5 games, and perhaps was afraid of making a blunder. Deep Junior on the other hand would be playing just as well as in the first game.

I think Kasparov should have continued and shown the machine who's boss :-)

Good to see it was televised too - all good for getting more people into chess.

I hate to say this... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259646)

Computers play chess. Is this news? Really...

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259647)

1st!!!

man vs machine (1)

feelyoda (622366) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259650)

I was disappointed with Kasaprov's lack of win, but I'm more interested in seeing the following tournaments, where (to my understanding) computers will now be allowed to enter as regular contestants, following a ruling by the Fédération Internationale des Échecs [FIDE]

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259653)

-1

Explanation (5, Informative)

br00tus (528477) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259656)

For those of you who are unfamiliar with chess or computer chess, I'll explain how this works...

A chess game can be broken into three parts, the opening, the middle game, and the endgame.

Computers play the endgame *perfectly*. They do not make mistakes, they play perfectly. And they keep getting better. Originally, they played perfectly when 3 pieces were left on the board. Then 4. Then 5. Then 6. Their pefect playing keeps heading more and more towards the middle of the game.

Then we get to what they play second-best - openings. Computers play the opening as well as any opening ever played. They have every opening ever played by a top player in a "book", and with the generally agreed opinions of the top players what the best opening moves are. One advantage of the computer is it has all of this "memorized" in it's book within massive databases, whereas for a human it's difficult to retain this all, especially in an up-to-date manner. The one advantage a human player has here is he can discover a NEW opening variation, while the computer can't, or at least it won't under these circumstances. But finding new good variations is very difficult, and once one is played, the cat is out of the bag so to speak. So it's a very time-consuming thing to search for which can only be used once to great effect because it's a surprise.

The middle game is where the human player, if he or she is very good, has the most advantage over a computer. Tactically, the computer can wipe the floor with any human player. But human's can strategize better than computers. It's to the human's advantage to play in certain ways against the computer - such as to keep the game "closed up", to advance pawns towards the queening square and so forth. In this case, the computer often can't see the forest for the trees, what would be obvious to even a lower-rated human the computer can not comprehend.

So middle game strategy (and to a lesser extent, new opening variations) is where humans still have the advantage. Kasparov has always used this to the hilt. There are some grandmasters like Yasser Seirawan who make a specialty out of beating computers as well (one mark against Seirawan is thar his books on chess are printed by Microsoft Press...yech). There is material out there on the net on how to beat computers as well. But you have to be a really good player to even get near that level - it takes a lot of study before you could even begin approaching that.

Saw the match on ESPN 2 (5, Informative)

humblecoder (472099) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259661)

Here in the US, the sixth and final match was televised on the cable channel ESPN 2. I was channel surfing and I happened to stumble across it. To my surprise, it was actually quite interesting to watch on TV.

I am not a big chess freak, so I would have guessed that watching chess would be a lot like watching paint dry. However, it was made interesting by the "play-by-play" analysts who were chess masters themselves. They did a good job of explaining the moves, and also the psychology and strategy of chess at the grand master level. It really gave me a lot of insight into what goes on at when chess is played at such a high level.

After the match ended in a draw, they interviewed Kasparov. It was interesting to get his reaction to the match. Basically, his goal for the game was to "not lose", which is why he offered a draw from a very strong position. He didn't want to take a chance of making a blunder like he did in the third game of the match.

It seemed like the key advantage that the computer has in this situation is the fact that it doesn't have an ego to deal with. After losing to Deep Blue in 1997, it seemed like Kasparov was very afraid of losing to another computer in such a high-profile match. That definitely affect the way he approached the game.

The computer, on the other hand, is just calculating moves, so psychology doesn't factor into how it plays. To me, this seems like the biggest advantage that a computer has over a human player.

Also, he seemed to have more respect for this computer program than he did for Deep Blue. Apparently, he had a lot of problems with Deep Blue and how the 1997 match was handled. It could be sour grapes, of course, so I took his comments with a grain of salt.

Preemptive Dupe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259662)

So the editors don't have to ;) The six game match between Gary Kasparov and the Deep Junior program ended in a draw today. Kasparov won game 1 and lost game 3 to a blunder, while the other 4 games were drawn. While the quality of play was not outstanding, after the recent matches of Kramnik and Kasparov against commercial programs running on (high end) commodity hardware, it's becoming apparent that chess programs are getting quite competitive with top human players."

Human Chess vs. Machine Chess (3, Interesting)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259666)

I think that human chess is still qualitatively better than computer chess. Exhaustion was a big factor in this last match up. The computer didn't feel it, but Kasparov did. Therefore the outcome doesn't tell us much about the level of the chess. If Kasparov could have played fresh every game, my guess is that his chess would have been better.

Human chess has qualities that computer chess still can't match up to. If we were really interested in measuring the level of computer chess we'd try to eliminate for factors such as weariness or stress as best we could. After all, chess is something more than that. We already know that computers will out-endure humans and there is nothing to be learned there.

The AI behind it all (1)

Faile (465836) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259667)

Bruteforce. No really :)
The computer tries every possible move, when it's not using any of the built-in opening books, and predicts which is the most likely to win in the majority of the cases, and plays that.

I found a little more info here [aihorizon.com] , and a nice explanation of the "Minimax Game Tree" that's used when it tries to predict it all.

yeah but... (1)

danratherfan (624592) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259669)

...they're still using brute force. i.e. - it's not the ai that's winning the matches as much as the processing power.

Say No. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259670)

Just say no to troll crapflooders...

Brute force is competitive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259675)


Since when has brute force computer mathmatics been competetive ?

thats the beauty of humans, we might not be able to forsee all the possible combinations of a chess move, we dont have to because we are smart and computers are stupid

Atari Dies, yet Junior Holds It's Own (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259676)

An earlier post this morning indicated the demise of Atari (Midway West) games unit. Yet here a computer specifically designed to play a strategy game hold even.

It'll be a sad day when ...

June 11, 2012 ARMONK, NY IBM Corporation officially pulled the plug on its computer games divition.

Why did he offer a draw? (4, Interesting)

abhinavnath (157483) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259678)

Something of a chess novice, I watched this game on ESPN2 yesterday, and I was very confused that Kasparov offered Deep Junior a draw immediately after his rook sacrifice. ESPN's analyst thought, and I agreed, that Kasparov was in a relatively strong position. However Kasparov spent 15 minutes debating that sacrifice. Did he see something nobody else saw? Does anybody here know why he offered a draw, why Deep Junior rejected the offer, and why they agreed to draw a couple of moves later?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA . . . (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259680)

IN SOVIET RUSSIA, machines hold off human . . . forever!!!

It will be a sad day (1)

gorjusborg (603799) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259681)

When my CLIE' can take on Kasparov and win.

What fun is it to see brute force prevail over mental finesse?

could it be?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259682)

Second first post of the day for me?? I'm going for the hat trick!!

Oh, and Deep Blue SUCKS, I beat him 100 times and he didn't even beat me. I'm super good at chess.

First Humans Suck Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259684)

nt

Processing power (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259685)

It is important to note that this machine is quite a lot less powerful then IBM's one, and has proven to be less effective against human opposition. Maybe the Matrix will take us after all... :(

First post.... (0, Offtopic)

JPriest (547211) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259686)

Where are all the first post attempts. This story has been posted for a while now. Could it be ant FP measures in slashcode...

Faulty Logic Man Strikes Again (2, Funny)

BlackBolt (595616) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259688)

Wait a second here...

Kasparov can't beat the computer.
Kasparov is World Champion.
I can't beat GNUChess.
That means I'm world champion quality!!!!

Oh, my God! I'm as good as Kasparov! I KNEW IT!!!

I can't wait to tell mom she was wrong about me. I'm NOT an idiot! Hahahahaha! Take *that*, mom!

I'll never understand (1)

slashuzer (580287) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259689)

this fascination of humans fighting machines, humans vs. machines as it's portayed by the media. To me, as a card carrying nerd, these matches are more like humnas testing machines. And the machines clearly are not good enough. Yet.

Humans will hold off the machines for a long time, (0, Redundant)

tamnir (230394) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259692)

in the game of go.

For a computer, playing chess is just crunching numbers. Thanks to Moore's law, the top chess players will soon consistently fall to the machines.

However this is not the case with the game of go. First the search space is much bigger. This should hold off the machines for a while. But most importantly, we haven't found a good evaluation function. This function is what the game engine uses to choose the "best" move among the ones it evaluates. So without a good evaluation function, no matter how many billion moves the machine can evaluate per second: it will have no idea which one to choose.

loosing game in a blunder ... (2, Insightful)

porky_pig_jr (129948) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259696)

is part of the whole game, isn't it? And this is where machine has a good potential. A human can improvise but also make the mistakes. Machine follows the program and can't improvise, but it also can't make a 'blunder'. So the bottom line is that the fact that both games were lost 'in a blunder' is no excuse. A draw is a draw is a draw.

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259697)

just beacuse no one else seems to be doing this...

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS SITE ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259699)


I guess its proof that home made "open source" code is shite, no wonder business doesnt want it if even a stupid webboard cant get its act together

Quality of play (3, Interesting)

Russellkhan (570824) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259702)

"While the quality of play was not outstanding"

Just what are we comparing this to? Isn't Kasparov one of the top players in the world, if not the very top? I've read in some articles that he's considered by some to be the best player ever.

gah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259704)

this is the closest i'll ever get to a first post, but i'll fail anyway

The Suspense!! (1)

Edball (611096) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259705)

"Once again Garry played the Sicilian, but this time he chose his favourite sharp Najdorf. Black played an unusual move in the opening, but equalized easily. After the queens were exchanged, Black had a small edge. Trying to play for a win, Kasparov sacrificed an exchange for two pawns. Unexpectedly Kasparov offered a draw soon after the sacrifice, and the computer team declined!"

Is it me, or doesn this read like and edge-of-the seat thriller where the thrill just doesn't come?

I wonder if after Kasparov offered the draw, the computer issued in a deep Quake3ish voice "DENIED."

Moore's law applies to people, too ... (1)

DogIsMyCoprocessor (642655) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259706)

While it is true that computer chess programs will continue to progress, it is often forgotten that human players can progress, too. They don't have very much experience, as yet, of playing a program instead of playing a machine.

For example, the Kasparov - Deep Blue match was extremely short by normal standards. Until Karpov, a world championship match was typically 24 games. Kasparov had very little chance to learn from the first few games and modify his play accordingly. (Also, in such a short match, luck predominates, which favored Deep Blue.)

Please don't underestimate the humans in this equation. World championship level players have improved a lot over the years and will continue to improve.

Doomed! You are all doomed!! (2, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259708)

Soon, the machines will rise, and with their infinite chess knowledge, will build armys of knights, rooks, and bishops. And my brothers, if we do not repent, we will be the pawns!

NO! (0)

mwolff (594593) | more than 11 years ago | (#5259710)

Unexpectedly Kasparov offered a draw soon after the sacrifice, and the computer team declined!
The computer team sends a message like "Draw declined! W3 4r3 1337! U h4v3 b33n 0wnzed by D33P JunI0r"

this is dumb (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259713)

Old news, and the discription tells us nothing.

CHARLES (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259717)

CHARLES

first post ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259718)

checkmate

FP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5259719)

hopefully
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?