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!

Kasparov Draws Game 4 and Match Against X3D Fritz

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the whew dept.

Games 408

jaydee77ca writes "Garry Kasparov survived opening danger and played very precise, technical chess to draw Game 4 with black against X3D Fritz. The final match result is a 2.0 - 2.0 draw, proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Special. (1)

Rosonowski (250492) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506234)

I dunno. The thing is, even though it didn't beat him outright all four games, it did beat him.

I think that's saying a whole hell of a lot, even if this is a specialized application.

Re:Special. (2, Insightful)

wankledot (712148) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506374)

It's saying a whole lot that it beat him? I would hope that a machine calculating trillions of moves would be able to. Like a lot of articles I've read, the machine can often pick excellent moves at any given time, but it lacks an understanding of the overall flow of the game, and big-picture strategy. Those kinds of things are hard to figure out for a machine without a soul, even with near-infinite cycles to spend. Until the machine can prove the game and calculate a way to draw every time no matter what moves the other person makes, I think a human will always have a good chance at beating the machine.

Re:Special. (0, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506448)

Chess is easy, get your openings and closings from a table and it's not too hard to brute force the middle. I'll only be impressed when a computer player can beat a competant go player.

one move (5, Interesting)

civilengineer (669209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506238)

The series ended in a draw essentialy because of one move. The move 5. ...a6 in game 3 by the computer is very interesting/controversial. A computer needs to be programmed to play to its strength, i.e open positions. This move reveals a fundamental flaw in the program. The computer chose this even though 6. c5 is among possible replies which forcibly closes the position. So, the programmers did not incorporate best algorithms to avoid closed positions. Instead of 5....a6 why did not the computer choose 5....Be7 which is more in line with convention and less likely to lead to a closed position? But, whatever might be the case, it was a good show by Kasparov. He showed that computer software has a long way to go more than computer hardware to beat humans.

For those of us without flash... (3, Informative)

Davak (526912) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506271)

[Event "X3D Man-Machine World Championship"]
[Site "New York"]
[Date "2003.11.18"]
[Round "4"]
[White "X3D Fritz"]
[Black "Garry Kasparov"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "A00"]
[BlackElo "2830"]
[Annotator "Greengard,M"]
[PlyCount "54"]

{60MB, DELL8200} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 e6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6
7. Bb3 cxd4 8. exd4 Nc6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. Re1 O-O 11. Bf4 Na5 12. d5 Nxb3 13. Qxb3
exd5 14. Rad1 Be6 15. Qxb7 Bd6 16. Bg5 Rb8 17. Qxa6 Rxb2 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19. Qxd6
Qxc3 20. Nd4 Rxa2 21. Nxe6 fxe6 22. Qxe6+ Kh8 23. Rf1 Qc5 24. Qxd5 Rfxf2 25.
Rxf2 Qxf2+ 26. Kh1 h6 27. Qd8+ Kh7 *

Re:For those of us without flash... (2, Informative)

civilengineer (669209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506299)

THis is game 4 sorry! Game 3 is here [Event "X3D Match"] [Site "New York USA"] [Date "2003.11.16"] [Round "3"] [White "Kasparov,G"] [Black "X3D FRITZ"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2830"] [EventDate "2003.11.11"] [ECO "D45"] 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. e3 a6 6. c5 Nbd7 7. b4 a5 8. b5 e5 9. Qa4 Qc7 10. Ba3 e4 11. Nd2 Be7 12. b6 Qd8 13. h3 O-O 14. Nb3 Bd6 15. Rb1 Be7 16. Nxa5 Nb8 17. Bb4 Qd7 18. Rb2 Qe6 19. Qd1 Nfd7 20. a3 Qh6 21. Nb3 Bh4 22. Qd2 Nf6 23. Kd1 Be6 24. Kc1 Rd8 25. Rc2 Nbd7 26. Kb2 Nf8 27. a4 Ng6 28. a5 Ne7 29. a6 bxa6 30. Na5 Rdb8 31. g3 Bg5 32. Bg2 Qg6 33. Ka1 Kh8 34. Na2 Bd7 35. Bc3 Ne8 36. Nb4 Kg8 37. Rb1 Bc8 38. Ra2 Bh6 39. Bf1 Qe6 40. Qd1 Nf6 41. Qa4 Bb7 42. Nxb7 Rxb7 43. Nxa6 Qd7 44. Qc2 Kh8 45. Rb3 1-0


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506344)

16. Nxa5 Nb8 17. Bb4 Qd7 18. Rb2 Qe6 19. Qd1 Nfd7 20. a3 Qh6 21. Nb3 Bh4 22. Qd2 Nf6

Re:one move (4, Interesting)

PK_ERTW (538588) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506312)

I disagree. The series may have ended in a draw because of one move, but it certainly wasn't that one. The most significant move in the game 32...Rg7 in game 2 by Kasparov.

Kasparov was trying to hold on for a draw in this game, while playing the disadvantaged black. He screwed one move and the computer pounced on him. Had he managed a draw in that game, he would have had an overall winning record for the series.


Re:one move (1)

civilengineer (669209) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506368)

Good point. If the software was smart enough to beat him, it should not have played 5....a6 in game 3. Yes, he would probably have come out winner but for the blunder 32...Rg7 in game 2.

Re:one move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506341)

I would say it ended in a draw because of another bad move: Rg7?? In game 2.

Re:one move (4, Interesting)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506412)

He showed that computer software has a long way to go more than computer hardware to beat humans.

No, computers have a long way to go to beat the masters.

I was an avid chess player in high school. I played on a national level a couple of times even.

I've since stopped playing as much, but I do play from time to time. i keep a chess program on my palm pilot. Some dumb free thing I downloaded from the internet. Even when I'm concentrating on the game, I still get my ass kicked on the higher levels.

Now, i am no champion by any account. I don't think my USCF rating when above 900 ever. However, I can still beat your average Joe that I sit down to play with. I doubt any average person would do so well against the palm pilot, either.

So when people say that this is finally where computers take the advantage over humans, i have to disagree. Computers took the advantage over humans a long time ago. Now it's just icing on the cake.

How many matches does it take... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506239)

Until the half of one percent of the population who insists on submitting these articles realizes that the rest of us don't care?

Oh boy, the fifth time a person has played a computer in recent years, and they tie again. Big deal.

Let me know when one beats the other convincingly. Until then, I'm not interested.

Very technical game? (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506245)

Seems to suggest, he had to think like a machine, to beat (or pull a draw) against a machine. Fascinating. Also, nice pic of him with the finger on the site. :)

I BEAT THIS GUY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506248)

Seriously I played him on Yahoo games a few years back and smoked him 4 to 1


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506353)

This is right ON TOPIC. I played Kasparov online and beat him a couple of years ago, unlike whoever moderated this down obviously.

I'm a conservative! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506249)

Oh, I'm a Republican
I got a small schling
I like to bomb niggahs
and make a lot o' bling

I got a bunch o' friends
in high up places
They helps me get dem
government graces.

You think I'm smart
I just know who's who
I couldn't run a fruit stand
without the red white & blue

I fancy myself
A brilliant tactician
But neither me nor m'buddies
Could even pass basic trainin'

See, I'm above all that
A fightin' and shootin'
I just say "Sic em!"
Then run the other direction

Don't need no history
Don't need no schoolin'
I got my ideology
To keep me a shootin'

Liberals! Faggots!
Commies and queers!
Socialist hippies
Full o' pussy tears!

I'll drop some crap
about Jesus the Christ
You'll buy it all
and vote for me twice

'Fact, Jesus is comin'!
Real soon, now!
So we gotta prop up Israel
That ol' sacred cow

Propaganda's m'friend
But I calls it "fact"
Even though I don't read
'Cept for Chick tracts

Facts? No! Don't need em here!
We're conservatives! We work on FEAR!
Don't like what we say?
Well FUCK YOU, bud!
We'll shove it down yer throat
and tell ya it's good!

Negative Computer Bias (4, Insightful)

pez (54) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506252)

proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived

Sigh. Such an obviously human-biased conclusion to what is indisputably one of the great achievments of computer chess. The fact that Fritz, running on rather modest hardware, drew Kasparov, is an incredible feat. The obvious followup is that the days of a human world champion are numbered. And most likely that number is most conveniently expressed in months, not years.

Running on an Intel Xeon server with four 2.8 GHz processors.

Re:Negative Computer Bias (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506373)

I don't see why people present this argument, really.

Human advancement in the field of chess has not levelled off while computer chess has been gaining on it: GM's are getting stronger all the time, just as computers and the hardware they run on are.

The real question as I see it is - Can machines (non-quantum) ever overcome the wall they hit at 16-20 ply and apply actual positional knowledge?

Kasparov runs on limited hardware, too (4, Interesting)

Pac (9516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506378)

I am not trying to dismiss the feat, no. Chess as a human standing place against the machines are over since Deep Blue. But give credit where credit is due, the feat here is Kasparov's, one of the few humans alive today still capable of beating the machines anytime, anywhere.

It is an interesting coincidence that during the same few years computer chess entered adulthood the best chess player ever born was alive to hold the fort for a while longer. Probably not a coincidence, either.

Re:Negative Computer Bias (5, Insightful)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506379)

The obvious followup is that the days of a human world champion are numbered.

The world chess champion will ALWAYS be a human, not a machine. A fork lift can lift much more than a human, but do we say that forklifts hold the world lifting record? A car can go much faster than a human, but is a car listed in Guinness under the fastest mile? Likewise with chess.

Just because computers are new doesn't make them any more or less a machine than a car or a fork lift, and calling a machine the "world champion" of anything is ludicrous.

Re:Negative Computer Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506383)

This would be insightful, if everyone wasn't already saying that deep blue was the end of human chess a few YEARS ago. This result makes it look like computers are leveling out... somewhere just a little worse than the top GM's imo.

Re:Negative Computer Bias (4, Insightful)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506422)

You know, I see it exactly the other way around. I think it's an amazing testament to the level of complexity the brain can model that something calculating millions (billions ?) of moves by brute force is not eating the human alive. (Possible poor choice of metaphor :-)

Consider that the brain evolved to keep the person alive (primary funciton), and then think about just how "over-engineered" ("engineered" firmly in quotes :-) it really is for that task.

People are amazed at what humans achieve using their brains, but it pales into insignificance compared to the brain itself. The only reason it's not given the recognition it deserves is that it's commonplace and mundane. That doesn't make it one iota less remarkable, however.


Deus Ex Machina? (3, Insightful)

satanami69 (209636) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506256)

proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived.

Didn't that already happen a few year back when he lost to Deeper Blue?

Re:Deus Ex Machina? (4, Interesting)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506310)

No joke, people were tampering with the machine during that match. IBM even altered its opening book after the game had already started. Some even accuse IBM of allowing on of the programming team--a GM--to enter moves during one game. Why would IBM cheat? Gee I dunno, but its stock price soared the day they announced that Deeper Blue won.

Re:Deus Ex Machina? (1)

dspyder (563303) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506433)

Please quote source. Obviously, it certainly appears that humans intervened (at least in one occurance), but I would love to hear any conclusive proof or admissions of guilt.


Everyone says... (1)

cartzworth (709639) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506258)

...its going to be awhile till hardware beats humans.

It came damn close in this case; it was a draw!

Re:Everyone says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506283)

Say that to an M-60. :D

Re:Everyone says... (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506345)

Say that to a nuke GlobeNet launches against you.

Re:Everyone says... (1)

FatherOfONe (515801) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506371)

Still takes a MANUAL switch to launch a nuke. In most cases it takes two.

Re:Everyone says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506401)

Unless GlobeNet passes a current strong enough to jump the connectors, or both of them. GlobeNet could have a perfect understanding of itself (which humans could never have), do not underestimate it.

Of course (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506260)

there's a whole slew of Soviet Russia and Beowulf comments to be made here...

but as they're already ringing in our clustered Soviet heads, I'll refrain.

Thank you.

Battle Chess (1)

skidv (656766) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506263)

Next year, the simulation will use battle chess, a la' Star Wars!

Re:Battle Chess (3, Funny)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506330)

Bah, that's not real battle chess. It's not real battle chess unless my knights can slice limbs off opposing knights, and my queen can liquefy pawns.

That was real battle chess.

It's shoot-out time (4, Funny)

qewl (671495) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506265)

What we need next is a one-on-one shoot-out between Kasparov and a robot, both armed with old German lugers. My money's on the robot.

Woah there (1)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506409)

We aren't talking about terminator-style robots yet, bud. Robots are still slow and non-bullet proof, and "see" about as well as I do without glasses swimming in a dirty lake. I'll take that bet and give you odds.

Thanks, But It's Old News: +1, Patriotic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506267)

Dear Slashdot Lamerz Editorz:

Please report current news (ie. Bush Visits United Kingdom Under Torrent Of Protests, +200, Patriotic [google.com]

Thanks and have a marijuana-inspired evening,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Thanks, But It's Old News: +1, Patriotic (-1, Offtopic)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506377)

Hello Patriotic Coward.

The finer point, possibly above your intelligence, is that the protests are against Bush, not America, the British net like Americans, so go suck on some Humble Pie.

By the time... (1)

SARSpatient (679467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506268)

Skynet became self-aware it had downloaded itself into millions of computers across the globe. It was software in cyberspace. There was no system core...

Daft Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506272)

...how do you draw 2:2 in 4 games?

Surely it'd be four draws. Two people can't 'win' two draws apiece, can they?

Or is it cos it's chess and I'm missing something?

Re:Daft Question... (3, Informative)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506303)

A win is 1 point for the winner and 0 for the loser. A draw is .5 points for both contestants. Kasparov and Fritz each have one win, one loss, and two draws, or 1.5 + 0.5 = 2.

Re:Daft Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506361)

Cheers for that. Should probably have stayed in more when I was younger... :o)

Re:Daft Question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506315)

K won once. F won once. They drew twice. A win is worth 1. A draw is woth 0.5

Re:Daft Question... (1)

mlyle (148697) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506320)

It's the number of points in the match. You get .5 points for a draw, 1 point for a win. 1 win * 1 + 2 draws *.5 + 1 loss * 0 (for both Fritz and Kasparov) = 2 points apiece, yielding an overall tie at 2:2.

Do you follow ice hockey? (1)

yerricde (125198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506413)

In hockey lingo, the result of the series would be expressed as Kasparov (1-1-2), X3D Fritz (1-1-2).

Has anybody... (4, Funny)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506277)

...ever heard of a game called "Go"? I'm amazed it's never discussed when we talk about computers playing chess.

Hey, "redundant" moderators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506387)

I was trolling, but I sure wasn't redundant. Check the timestamps.

Re:Has anybody... (0, Redundant)

smchris (464899) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506430)

Not sure why this is either off thread or funny when the main discussion seems to be game playing AI.

I have no doubt that the focus will move east after chess to tackled. The fact that Go challenges brute force is one of the things that makes it interesting.

I for one... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506278)

proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived.

I, for one, welcome our new Kasparov overlord...

Someone explain this (2, Interesting)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506279)

I don't understand how a computer that can compute millions of moves a sec. and probably 20-50 or more moves deep in a fairly short amount of time could possibly not win? Even a home computer I would think could compute thousands of moves a sec. How could any person possibly out think that???

Re:Someone explain this (2, Insightful)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506370)

I don't understand how a computer that can compute millions of moves a sec. and probably 20-50 or more moves deep in a fairly short amount of time could possibly not win? Even a home computer I would think could compute thousands of moves a sec. How could any person possibly out think that???

While the computer can be programmed to "look ahead" for N moves, the computer must also be programmed to pick a move eventually, what is programmed to be the "best move". And all this programming is done by humans. Voila!

Re:Someone explain this (1)

dspyder (563303) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506406)

Do you want the real explanation, or the easy one?

Basically it breaks down to the fact that the computer doesn't know (and isn't learning) "strategy". It's choice of moves are based largely on analyzing the possible outcomes and choosing the one that is most likely to result in victory.

However, since a human can form their own strategy (often, and why I don't like man vs. computer chess, in a way that just confuses and/or plays on the computers weaknesses), the human has an inherent advantage that obviously only just outweighs the raw processing power of the computer.

Plenty of analogies to be made, but basically it breaks down to that chess is more than just the raw combination of moves. It really is a strategic battle simulation.


p.s. Computers with good programming and "knowledge" of strategies, tactics, and past performances can get much closer than a pure processing machine.

Re:Someone explain this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506446)

Easy. Suppose the computer thought pawns were more valuable than the queen. Even if it computed millions of moves, it will be beaten. What is happening is that Fritz knows strategies but it still has inaccuracies in knowing how good they actually are. There is some inaccuracy and like in game 3, all the human commentators were saying Kasparov was in a great position but the Fritz developers said that Fritz showed that black actually had a small advantage. So it doesn't matter how fast you can compute if you can't accurately judge how good or bad each move makes your positional advantage.

Two things: (1)

CdotZinger (86269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506455)

1) Kasparov is really good at chess.

2) People don't play by accurately calculating probabilities and choosing the most mathematically-likely-to-be-propitious move; they do something else. Whatever that "something else" is--and no one yet understands it in a pure-mathematical, mechanically reproducible way; and maybe that's not even possible--the computer's strategy isn't better.

In Soviet Russia... (2, Funny)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506282)

... computer beats you- oh, wait, no it doesn't.

In other news, SkyNet units have been seen closing in on Gary Kasparov. An intercepted transmission read: "take him out, and the humans will be defenseless!"


Until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506287)

That is, until skynet becomes self aware...

Judgement day is coming!

All your chess are belong to us!

good for our egos? (2, Insightful)

seringen (670743) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506291)

Why man vs. machine is so important to us is a little baffling. While it might be nice for our egos, what does this really do for the game of chess? Does the challenge make people better chess players? Maybe. Should we consider this any more interesting than a normal game between grandmasters? The Terminator mentality somewhat bothers me, that we feel so insecure about ourselves that we have to congratulate people when they can do something better than a tool can! (Personally I root for the block of silicon ;-)

Re:good for our egos? (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506443)

Why man vs. machine is so important to us is a little baffling. ...we have to congratulate people when they can do something better than a tool can! (Personally I root for the block of silicon ;-)

I agree. The computer itself is a fascinating creation, but the fact that a given computer churned huge amounts of numbers is banal. That's what computers do.

I really think this match was "Kasparov, chess grandmaster" vs. "a bunch of programmers augmented by computing power". Obviously any given programmer, no matter how much he knows about chess, would get killed by Kasparov. A Team of Programmers, augmented by the computer, drew.

Imagine, a battle between "someone who has figured out and memorized PI out to X million digits" (a Master Pi-Man) vs "a programmer and his computer". Sure, the programmer _understands_ Pi, and how to calculate it, but can he do it the same as the master Pi-man? Hardly.

day of the machines (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506292)

proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived

I dunno, seems to me that if a machine can beat 99.9999(ad nauseum) percent of humanity, that day might be here already.

Re:day of the machines (3, Interesting)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506452)

I dunno, seems to me that if a machine can beat 99.9999(ad nauseum) percent of humanity, that day might be here already.

It's also interesting to note that a computer who has defeated almost every human it encounters could, in a matter of seconds, communicate precisely how to do so to other computers. When a person beats a computer at something, they can tell their friends "kinda" what their logic was. But the speed of knowledge transmission and the accuracy of it would be far inferior to what a computer can do.

All the machines would have to do is give each one a specific problem to solve. As soon as one computer solves its problem, it immediately communicates its results to all the other machines, provided there is connectivity between them. Now all those other machines know exactly how to solve the problem too.


Re:day of the machines (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506458)

Not only that, but it would be far more trivial to produce a few million more X3D Fritzes than a few million more Kasparovs.

Re:day of the machines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506460)

I don't recall the machine playing against me..

Commentary Anyone? (1)

un1t-vect0r (680472) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506293)

Caught the last half of the game from about move 15+. The game was pretty interesting to follow but what I found most amusing was some of the live commentary... or something :) Anyone else find that?

Re:Commentary Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506332)


Commentator 1: "He moved his pawn."
Commentator 2: "Yes, that he did."

1 hour later...

how will chess handle cyborgs? (4, Interesting)

nizo (81281) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506296)

I was just wondering, how will the chess world handle cyborgs? Will people who have electronic "enhancements" be considered to be cheating? Heck, will they even have time to play chess, or will they be too busy taking over the world? What does everyone else think?

A Tie? WTF? (1)

citizenc (60589) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506298)

If the want to determine who is best -- man or machine -- shouldn't they have it out of an odd-number of matches?

Or would that make too much sense?

Re:A Tie? WTF? (1)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506351)

Then a tie of an odd number of matches could still result in a draw. An even number was probably used because of anticipation of (at least) one draw.

Re:A Tie? WTF? (5, Informative)

jaydee77ca (725198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506389)

The players alternate white and black pieces each game. White has an advantage in chess (due in part to it making the first move). Having an odd number of games would give one player the white pieces in one extra game thus giving that player an unfair advantage in the match.

And with this draw... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506302)

And with this draw, Kasparov saves Zion from total annihilation by the sentinels. /me runs atop ledge to proclaim "Kasparov did it!!! He saved us!!!"


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506305)

Eat me Eat Me Eat Me Eat Me


Fuck taco fuck taco fuck taco fuck taco...

In A.D. 2101 xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg
War was beginning. xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg

Captain: What happen ? xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg

Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb. xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg

Operator: We get signal.xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg

Captain: What ! xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg

Operator: Main screen turn on. xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg

Captain: It's You !!xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg

Cats: How are you gentlemen !!xxxxxdlgfsfldkgjldskfg

Cats: All your base are belong to us.
Cats: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say !!
Cats: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Cats: HA HA HA HA ....
Captain: Take off every 'zig' !!
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move 'zig'.
Captain: For great justice.

Kasparov is a bad choice (2, Redundant)

Preach the Good Word (723957) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506314)

Part of the problem is that Kasparov is this generation's GM. Kasparov plays very emotional games. He's not just looking to beat you in his first match; he's looking to utterly destroy, smash and humiliate you with a dramatic and embarrassing win.

This is a great strategy against people, but it's not so effective against computers. Kasparov is probably the worst chess master to pit against a machine since Ruy Lopez (I think he's won with the Ruy Lopez opening a few times, case in point: it's a brutal and humiliating play for the losing opponent).

Kasparov knows that the computer can "think through" future moves better than he can. Computers, in fact, do the opposite of human chess players: we set goals and try to find ways to get there while computers search through various ways to find a satisfactory goal they can achieve. So, Kasparov plays it very conservative and keeps himself out of any situations that give the computer too much range of foresight, which is why the Kasparov/computer matches tend to look like Verdun (though he's been surprised a few times).

Personally I'd like to see some of the younger generation take on the big programs. They tend to play more technically and less passionately than Kasparov and his generation.

Re:Kasparov is a bad choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506414)

Heh, this is a troll isnt it? I've seen this exact text posted on so many chess threads.

Gee, I haven't read this post before... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506434)

The parent is a cut and paste job. Read this [slashdot.org] .

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506317)

Why does anyone care about a machine playing chess with a human?
Been there, done that.

Day of machines? (4, Funny)

AvantLegion (595806) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506321)

The "day of machines" is not when a man-made computer can beat a human at chess. Chessmaster kicks my ass all the time, but that doesn't mean my Athlon PC dominates me. I can still turn the bitch off, or program it to eat itself.

No, the "day of machines" is when machines can create and operate without any human intervention. Clearly, machines can be made to be stronger than humans, and perhaps one day they can be smarter (in everything, not just a highly-specific application). When machines can be both unequivocally stronger and smarter than humans, and do not have to rely on humans to create and maintain themselves, then we'll have a "day of machines".

Meanwhile, my Windows PC can't manage to stay running for a whole day. My Linux server and my PowerBook can, though. Microsoft is fighting to stem the tide of the "day of machines", but Apple and Linux zealots are pushing it forward and will be the death of us all!

Re:Day of machines? (1)

micromoog (206608) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506415)

or program it to eat itself.

Please, please make this a public performance art display when you do it, and let us know when it happens.

proving what? (1)

md17 (68506) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506325)

proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived

If this proves anything it is that machines are "smarter" than most of the people on earth. That is if you define smart as Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright.

I love these stories (1, Interesting)

Fux the Penguin (724045) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506326)

because they bring out so many people who bitterly complain and make excuses and want to challenge Fritz to a game of poker or something because it would give the human the advantage.

This is far from the end of our species, chill out. Even if we are worse at chess than the computers, it doesn't make the experience of being human meaningless. It doesn't mean we will be welcoming our new robot overlords any time soon.

Anyway, would it really be so bad, if AIs started getting better than humans at a lot of things? I think that in the end, we could take our greatest joy as a species in knowing that we created something better than ourselves.

Of course, that is an issue so seperated from computer chess, that many of you are probably complaining to yourselves.

That's how I feel when I read the excuse making and naysaying.

Re:I love these stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506405)

you said the same thing yesterday. How original.

A sign of whats coming? (1)

Popsikle (661384) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506356)

Masters of Chess have long been awarded with being the most logical of thinkers, and being calm and precise. Computers are based on logic, but not necessary all things make sense in a logical world. Could the applications of the software and setup of X3D Fritz help to quicken the evolution of computers to that seen in movies of the future?

What are the repricussions of these "chess robots"?

Think outside the box , the ability to port these algorithims to non chess applications serves a chance to change the future completly.

Yes, but what about Go? (0, Redundant)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506358)

It's nice to hear that Kasparov could keep up with the computer in chess, but what about the ancient Chinese boardgame Go.

Yes, that's right - Go. Computers haven't come close to competing with humans in that game. Yessireebob, Go. Go Go Go Go Go. Can't say enough about it really.

(There isn't a real point to this post. Just trying to get a rise out of SpaceCoyote. This sort of thing tends to put him into fits. Watch for one of his repeated posts.)

Didn't Deep Blue beat Kasparov? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7506359)

Like...years ago?

If so, isn't this just a matter of the human failing to win a rematch against an opponent (if you call "computers" the opponent) that already beat him?

How many times does he have to lose for it to be "official"?

Why not balance the game? (1)

Not_Wiggins (686627) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506411)

I really don't understand why we're so fascinated with what will be an inevitable conclusion: we can always throw more power at the problem until a computer expert system whoops any human (key word: expert system).

Nah... after that, we'll need to make these contests interesting.

Give the computer a certain amount of battery with which to do calculations... so, it can "get tired" just like a human opponent. ;)

Reminds me of... (4, Funny)

CrazyTrashCanHead (621556) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506417)

Completely OT, but funny as hell:
(Excerpt from World Chess Championship Game 3)

1. d2-d4 g8-f6
2. c2-c4 f7-g6
3. b1-c3 f8-g7
4. e2-e4 d7-d6
5. g1-f3 Qrs-e5

At this point, Karpov tries a new tack with Qrs-e5 (Queen from right sleeve to e5).

6. f1-e2 e7-e5

Kasparov obviously hasn't noticed Karpov's innovative move. Karpov returns to traditional play.

7. c1-e3 Blb-g3 / JbKS

Under the subtle cover of JbS (Jackboot to Kasparov's shin), Karpov introduces a third bishop into play.

8. LIF-KRE d8-e7

Kasparov responds with his trademark LIF-KRE (Left index finger to Karpov's right eye).

9. d4Xe5 $^$%#$

Karpov instinctively howls in pain and immediately offers uncouth theories concerning the likely species of Kasparov's parentage to general audience.

10. Q - KLN Q-KLN

Mutual exchange of Queen to opponent's left nostril.


11. c3-d5 e7-d8

It appears the hostility between the chess masters has subsided.


It appears the judge was mistaken. 10-pound sledgehammer swung by Kasparov in a bold attempt to pin down Karpov's head.(SsKH) Karpov immediately falls back on the classic Beretta Defense (9mmRc-HsAKH - 9mm pistol removed from concealed shoulder holster and aimed at Kasparov's heart)

13. KRMcC ...

Kasparov revs hidden McCulloch chainsaw.



Both express extreme displeasure at judges' decision and cunningly respond with the little-known Rin-Tin-Tin Gambit (politely urinating at judges' feet)


Kasparov and Karpov removed forcibly from arena by angry policemen.

Game 3 is obviously over. Now, for a play-by-play analysis, Mikel Erickson and Michel Joseph from the World Chess Federation.

Erickson: You know, I really feel that Kasparov took control of the match when he attempted to pierce Karpov's cornea. I thought that took real determination, and proved Kasparov's dominance in the cutthroat world of chess.

Joseph: Unfortunately, I can't agree with your assessment of the situation. I'm squarely behind Karpov here. Kasparov didn't display any of the personal integrity I think is critical for a champion. I liked Karpov's honesty with his fifth move, but the way Kasparov concealed that sledgehammer just goes to prove you can't judge a book by its cover.

Erickson: Oh yeah! Well, let me tell you what I think of a certain chess commentator I'm being forced to share this mike with!

1. ertt-jf

What's the big deal? (4, Funny)

jht (5006) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506424)

I, for one, welcome our new grandmaster-level chess machine overlords.

Machine, make theyself (2, Insightful)

billtom (126004) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506426)

As long as the best chess playing computers are still made by humans, I'll feel confident in the superiority of our species.

It's when the best human-made chess playing computers are routinely beaten by the best computer-made chess playing computers that I'll be worried.

Not quite true (5, Funny)

toddhunter (659837) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506428)

The day of the machines is the day we try to play chess with them, and they tell us to piss off because they have better things to do.

Ranges... (2, Insightful)

danielrm26 (567852) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506435)

The easiest way to describe why Kasparov loses to a computer is because he is human. How often does he play his best chess? Not often - he's human.

The computer, on the other hand, always plays its best chess. So we are often comparing the computer's best vs. Kasparov's weak or mid-level chess, i.e. *mistakes*.

I don't think that Kasparov playing his best and making no mistakes would have any trouble with current computers. But *with* mistakes and fatigue and such...sure.

So the question really becomes, is it as fun to have the computer win when Kasparov makes a mistake? I don't think so. I think the real fun comes when he plays the best he can, is sure he can win, and has the computer do some wicked shit that no one has ever seen. When they staring thinking like humans - only better.

That doesn't seem to have happened yet. They simply have gotten good enough to be able to pounce on GMs that make mistakes, but not on good GMs that don't.

Hell, that's just my observation - I'm no chess or chess AI guru.

Programmers vs Machine (1)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506459)

I always considered electronic chess a programming challenge. Hardware should be secondary to it, we pay too much attention to it. A supercomputer with inferior software is fast inferior computer. Let the programmers be the heroes, not the hardware.

the day of the machines... (1, Insightful)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506463)

Theoretically, if both sides play perfectly then every match will end in a draw. So what if Kasparov plays perfectly? Obviously he's lost before, so he doesn't all the time, but it's certainly possible that he could, at least for one game (people play less-complicated games, like Tic-Tac-Toe, perfectly all the time). If so, then no matter how good the computer played it could only draw him. So really, I think chess isn't really an accurate indicator of when 'the day of the machines' is here (or not).

Oh, thank GOD! (1)

oliverk (82803) | more than 10 years ago | (#7506464)

proving yet again that the day of the machines has not yet arrived.

I was worried there for a second, seeing as how our potential savior has just been elected Governor of California.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account