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!

Computers Win at Man vs Machine Championship

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the i-for-one-welcome-our-chess-playing-overlords dept.

Classic Games (Games) 30

Fanfan writes "Chessbase is reporting that the man vs. machine championship ended badly for the humans : The event ended in a depressing 3.5:8.5 loss by the humans to the computers. Both Fritz and Hydra scored a remarkable 3.5 points out of four games, while an out-of-form Junior ended up with 1.5 points after the only computer loss in this tournament (to 14-year-old Sergey Karjakin)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


congrats (2, Insightful)

heistgonewrong (808413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10536078)

The only computer loss in this tournament, to a 14 year old kid... cheers to him!

Depressing? (1)

benploni (125649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10536124)

Why is that depressing? I would have said stunning -- and then done a little dance to show how undepressing I find this progress.

Re:Depressing? (2, Funny)

heistgonewrong (808413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10536172)

Those same people who find this depressing are going to be the ones burning the computers and blowing up electrical plants when they realise they're not as smart as the software they're using.

Exactly my thought (1)

Merk (25521) | more than 9 years ago | (#10536765)

Does it diminish humans in any way that they can now be beaten at chess by a computer, especially by a computer that can do almost nothing else? If you've defined your life around chess, it might be depressing, but this just shows that it's important to be well-rounded. But even then, chess is a game. It is supposed to be fun to play. Does it become less fun now that a computer can play the game better than you, better than the best in the world? Why should it?

I might find it depressing if computers were eventually able to write more interesting poetry than a human, or paint better pictures, or do something else creative. But, perhaps not even then. It wouldn't diminish the quality of a human's art if a computer could do it better -- it simply means that there's more beautiful art!

I think this is a triumph for humanity, in its ability to create chess-playing-computers, not a tragedy for humanity because they're no longer better than computers at some random thing.

Re:Exactly my thought (1)

cjpez (148000) | more than 9 years ago | (#10537300)

especially by a computer that can do almost nothing else?
There was some quote, I think it was on a live CD from some band, talking about a Chess computer, and how people were all upset that this Chess computer was beating the top chess-playing humans, and "but what if there's an Earthquake? *I* know enough to go hide under a door frame, what's the computer going to do? What if there's a fire?" Fairly amusing, whoever it was. Their phrasing was, of course, more humorous than my vague recollections as well.

Re:Depressing? (2, Insightful)

Reapy (688651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10538872)

Exactly, why is this depressing? I mean, human's built the computers. They created every part of the machine, designed the algorithms used to search for moves, populated the database it uses to think, and hell, invented the game of chess.

Getting upset at being beat by a chess computer is like getting depressed about a forklift being able to lift more then you.

Play Go. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10536479)

Obligatory Go post.

Seriously, chess or computers is a brute-force exercise in going through all the possible permutations on the chessboard. If only life was so simple and limited.

Go is about constant evaluation, pattern recognition, and balance and computers can't touch it.

What can chess software do beyond playing chess? Everything is mapped out ahead of time. The pieces abilities are always known and their movement and purpose is predetermined.

What is that stone for? Attack, defense, infrastructure? All three? Is it part of group A or group B? Depends on how play goes.

A computer that can analyze Go can analyze life. There are too many factors interacting simultaneously to brute-force so you must actually move forward with AI. Chess is a dead end.

Re:Play Go. (1)

Zaak (46001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10538589)

Go is about constant evaluation, pattern recognition, and balance and computers can't touch it.

That's how people play Go. That's also how people play Chess. That's not how computers play either one.

A computer that can analyze Go can analyze life. There are too many factors interacting simultaneously to brute-force so you must actually move forward with AI.

People used to think that making chess-playing computers would help us understand intelligence. Turns out it just helped us understand Chess (and a few other things).

The only real difference between Chess and Go as far as computers are concerned is that Go is many orders of magnitude more complex. It's only a matter of time before computer power and search techniques reach a level that can challenge humans at playing Go. Whether that leads to a computer that can analyze life remains to be seen.


Re:Play Go. (1)

VendingMenace (613279) | more than 9 years ago | (#10539040)

Of course, as long as you PERSONALLY can't manage to calculate the entire game from the start (i will help you out here -- you can't) then chess is everybit as unknown as GO (which is a great game too).

I don't understand how the fact that computers can solve chess games is supposed to make the game no fun anymore? The point seems to be that as long as you haven't solved it, then it should be fun for you.

Just becuase a computer could kick you ass at crosswords puzzles (or a multitude of other games) does not mean that they are no fun.


Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10536536)

Leaked copies of Halo 2 on the warez scene reveal that MASTER CHIEF DIES IN HALO 2


Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10537034)

This rumour has been brought to you by a n00b playing on legendary...

Heh (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 9 years ago | (#10536735)

The computers may have won, but from the pictures, it looks like the humans had more fun. It will be a while before they make a computer that's better than we are at that (though it might be soon when a computer learns to post better jokes on slashdot than the typical human).

One thing to remember (2, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 9 years ago | (#10537528)

These computers were all designed programmed by teams of people. The play of the computer is a credit to how much further we have advanced in electronics and computing. The shock should be when somebody actually manages to beat the computer!

Re:One thing to remember (0)

zonker (1158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10547671)

not being terribly familiar with these tournaments, i'm curious if anyone has done a turing test combined with a championship chess tournament.

i remember a portable chess computer that i had that was vulnerable to certain types of attacks that it wasn't programmed very well to handle and you could almost always beat it using those attacks. of course, it also couldn't learn from its mistakes either so once you were skilled enough to find its weakness it wasn't as much fun to play anymore... i'm curious if a champion chess player could tell if a computer was a computer...

Depressing? Hardly. (2, Interesting)

ZeeCog (641179) | more than 9 years ago | (#10538065)

I wouldn't call this depressing at all. After all, humans can still manage the task of playing chess, speaking any different number of languages, walking (controlling thousands upon thoudands of muscular fibers simultaneously), observing and comprehending the world around us, _designing_ those computers that beat us, and the myriad of other miracles that we perform on an hourly basis. I'd say, if anything, we should be patting these puny little computers on the head, condescendingly congratulating them on their miniscule achievment.

Anyone else amazed? (2, Interesting)

Warpedcow (180300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10538824)

Is anyone else amazed that the winner, Fritz 8, was running on a mere 1.7GHZ laptop???

If the computers didn't... (1)

marktaw.com (816752) | more than 9 years ago | (#10539853)

If the computers didn't design the computer programs playing the games, then I'd say either way is a win for humans.

Re:If the computers didn't... (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 9 years ago | (#10542487)

If the computers didn't design the computer programs playing the games, then I'd say either way is a win for humans.
I'd say its a victory of the wanna-be chess master computer geeks over the chess grandmasters.

kasparov vs. deep blue (from Moxy Fruvous) (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10543131)

(Murray) Well, I... I do have a question. How many people were voting for Deep Blue?
And how many people were voting for Kasparov? Ah.....humanity has hope - still, I suppose.
(Jian) How many people are like actually disappointed that the human lost.
No no, disappointed I mean. Duh! No, Because like I just don't get it, you know? I mean,
you know? What's the fucking big deal, you know? It's a machine, right? I don't know.
I made the point in Albany the other day which apparently lost on all the Albanians.
(Murray) I didn't get it either.
(Dave) That's not all that was lost on the Albanians.
(Jian) There still behind the times.
(Dave) There's a lot of foreign aid going on there.
(Murray) Your point was if there's a fire, Deep Blue wouldn't run out of the room.
(Jian) Exactly!
(Mike) Couldn't run out of the room.
(Jian) That's exactly my point. If an attractive person walks into the room, a person that would
be attractive to Deep Blue, it can't do anything about it. That's my point.
Kasparov can approach the person.
(Murray) The attractive person.
(Jian) No! Here's my point. My point is a calculator. That's my point. Right?
(Murray) No, let's get back the fire.
(Jian) No, hang on. No, no, the calc...forget the fire, because apparently it's, you know,
I'm talking on a different level.
(Murray) I - Clearly!
(Jian) Here's the thing. Here's the thing. A calculator, right, a common everyday calculator.
(Murray) I'm with you.
(Jian) A calculator will, you know, it...let's say, let's play the adding game, right? Who can
add faster a calculator or a woman or man? A calculator can, right? So what's the big deal?
We know that there are instruments... we know that there are are machines...
we know that there are computers, etcetera.
that can do things that. It's just because the the thing won at chess, right?
I don't understand what the big deal is.
(Murray) Your point is if you light a match near your calculator, it's not going to scurry away.
It's all relative.
(Jian) No, my point is...My point is if there's a calculator. My point is... oh alright, okay,
I'll bring it back to the fire for you, because I know you're obsessed.
If there's a fire in my living room, where me and my calculator are sitting, I can escape the fire.
(Dave)Yeah, but...
(Jian) But my calculator can't.
(Murray) Is there a logic course here that one of us can enroll in?
(Jian) Well, I think, I think they know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that the machine is programmed to only do one thing.
It can't do anything else. The fire was just one example. Pick anything, anything.
(Mike) Locusts.
(Murray) A flood. How about a flood? Can he escape a flood?
(Jian, laughing) Kasparov can....
(Mike) A plague of frogs.
(Jian) No, say there's an, say there's an earthquake. Right.
(Murray) Now, there's a good one.
(Jian) There's an earthquake doen the middle of the room, the chess room. Kasparov can get up and move. Deep Blue can't.
(Murray) It falls into the chasm.
(Jian) That's my point.
(Dave) But if they built Deep Blue in a door frame then there's no room for Kasparov to stand...
to fight the earthquake. Then they're doubly screwed.
(Jian) See...see...they'd have to program Deep Blue to escape the fire. That's my thing.
(Murray) But they can do that in a couple of years.
(Mike) You know we were talking about... we were talking about disaster movies.
This would be the perfect disaster movie. Just have an endless succession
of these scenes where Deep Blue is just sitting there. "It's the locusts" or whatever and Kasparov is just running his little
piggy legs out of the room. "I'm free again, you fucker."
Check for New 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