Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Supercomputing Classic Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Linux Chess Supercomputer Overpowers Grandmaster 375

Posted by timothy from the would-you-like-to-play-a-game dept.
Capt Bubudiu writes "Deep Blue vs. Kasparov is something most readers will remember but when Deep Blue was retired by IBM, a Dubai company took over with Hydra. In a $150,000 6-game challenge in Wembley UK, the games got off to a humiliation for mankind as Michael Adams, the UK Grandmaster, was mauled in games one and three, drawing game two. Adams is ranked seventh in the world and what ordinary mortals call a 'Super Grandmaster'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Chess Supercomputer Overpowers Grandmaster More

Linux Chess Supercomputer Overpowers Grandmaster

Comments Filter:

  • "we" won? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by moz25 ( 262020 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:00PM (#12910233) Homepage
    The interesting thing is that in a man vs. machine fight, the tech folks can say "we won" as they assembled the machine. Is it a humiliation or triumph for mankind that it can build a machine that can defeat itself? I think it would rather be a failure for humans if mortals can defeat highly optimized machines.

    • Re:"we" won? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MindStalker ( 22827 )
      Exactly, because while chess can be a game of strategy, it can also be a game of math via analysing moves till the end of the game. Just as there may have been people who could do math faster than 1920's computers, one the computer got the upper hand there really was no turning back, and no chance that a human could be as fast at simple calculations. Chess is the same and honestly a person may occasionally win in the next few years. Soon it will be completly solved, and no human will ever beat a computer ag

      • Re:"we" won? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by BewireNomali ( 618969 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:28PM (#12910392)
        Exactly. There is no suspense. Machines will be better at us at these things because that is their purpose. It's what they've been designed to do.

        Given enough time, machines will be better than us at EVERYTHING.

        To me, it isn't amazing that machines designed to excel at chess beat the best humans. It's amazing to me that humans can still beat and/or draw games with machines designed to be brute force unbeatable.

        It's like Steven Hawking beating Shaq at basketball. It's amazing, be glad that you were around to witness it. Don't expect it to happen again.

        • Re:"we" won? (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ThreeE ( 786934 )
          Machines will never be creative. They will always suck at art.

        • Re:"we" won? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MyLongNickName ( 822545 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:49PM (#12910498) Journal
          Given enough time, machines will be better than us at EVERYTHING.

          Except at assigning purpose. This is one thing that cannot be expressed mathematically.

          And you also do not understand chess. Chess is a drawn game by default. A "perfect" player could not beat you unless you made a mistake. There are ways to play the game that focus on minimizing risk as opposed to all out win.

          Take a look at players like Petrosian (world champion in mid 60's as I recall). His style was python-like. He would see to suffocate you. Then, after tying you down, would systematically destroy you. Petrosian would be much better at playing supercomputers that Kasparov every was. His style could not be brute forced with today's supercomputers... too many plies to calculate... too many fruitless branches.

          But, I do agree, in a few more decades humans will never be able to score a victory against the best computers.

          But who cares? It is a linear game. I do not define my worth as a human being cased on linear criteria. Kinda gets back to the "purpose" thing.

          Of course, if you are a Nihilist...
          • Chess is a drawn game by default.

            This is not known to be the case. Because we do not know the optimal strategy for playing chess, we can't know the outcome of a game between two perfect players.

            A "perfect" player could not beat you unless you made a mistake.

            If two perfect players always draw their game, then this is true; however, if the game favors white, then there's nothing that black can do--even if he knows the optimal strategy--to win the game.

    • Re:"we" won? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by leonmergen ( 807379 ) *

      Personally, I believe that computers, at this point, can beat mankind in anything that can be mathematically explained. Chess is an example of something that you can describe in mathematics, and thus, if you throw enough computing power at it, sure it will win. You can calculate ALL the possible moves the opponent can make to win and all the actions you can do against it at any point in the game, if only you have enough computing power.

      Now, since it requires a pretty big supercomputer to win from one man,

      • Re:"we" won? (Score:5, Informative)

        by ottffssent ( 18387 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:24PM (#12910370)
        The computers are not beating the humans with math. They are not relying on superior computational capability. The computers are winning with superior algorithms. Even a fairly shallow complete traversal of the search space is many orders of magnitude away from being possible, and a machine using this approach will be consistently beaten by even middling players. Computer chess has advanced primarily due to algorithmic optimizations. The evaluation functions that a modern chess engine uses are extremely well-tuned, and while a chess engine may be backed by an enormous pre-computed opening book, this too is dependent on algorithmic advances, because the book is calculated using algorithms as well, not a brute-force search. The two sets of algorithms are different, and the opening book can benefit from hugely greater computational resources, but ultimately the search algorithm is the limiting factor.

        In short, the recent successes of machine chess are due to human enginuity, to the same sort of creative processes that humans themselves use to play chess. Technology, in the machine sense, is almost irrelevant (see Fritz's victories on a dinky 8P Xeon with a few gig of RAM) when compared to the advances in understanding of the game of chess.

        Interestingly, even as the programmers are developing an ever-greater understanding of chess, chess players are developing an ever-greater understanding of both the game and the way in which computers play it, though people with much greater understanding of this than I tell me that the newest algorithms are playing a very human-like game, minimizing the effect of understanding 'computer chess' on the game.

        • Re:"we" won? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by NitsujTPU ( 19263 )
          You said exactly what I wanted to say. I was, however, afraid that my explanation would be over the heads of other readers, and I'd end up in a long thread explaining the commentary.

          It would be prudent to point out an interesting strategy regarding the way humans play chess against computers. Most chess engines do do a form of search, and use techniques to optimize that search. A technique that can help a player to beat these engines is to play with a strategy that keeps the most pieces on the board, re
      • Try theorem proving.

        Computers can't beat humans at that, or even hope to do so at the moment.

      • Re:"we" won? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jtdubs ( 61885 )
        This may be a theoritical truth (not that I'm conceding that), but it is certainly not a practical truth.

        Example:

        The number of possibly game states in the Go is over 10^150. Many orders of mangnitude higher than the number of atoms in the universe. The best Go playing computer is ranked around 5k or so, which would make it a relatively strong amateur.

        Question:

        Can you name something that you believe can not be explained mathematically? Do you have evidence for this? If not, then your first sentance c
        • Chess computers don't look at all possibilities. They use pruning algorithms to limit options. Similarly in reversi (a game that is virtually solved via. computers) computers use a scoring system. Go is beatable, Chess is just far better known and attracted far more attention early on.

    • Re:"we" won? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Even a lever is a machine that can lift more than I can unassisted.
      There is no shame in being 'defeated' by a machine.

    • Beating a supercomputer is easy.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Thomas DM ( 895043 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:16PM (#12910324) Homepage
      I bet I can beat every supercomputer on Earth.. If you just allow me to pull the plug ;)

      • Re:Beating a supercomputer is easy.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:29PM (#12910398) Journal
        I bet I can beat every supercomputer on Earth.. If you just allow me to pull the plug ;)

        Or a really powerfull magnet.

        But then again, I could put some CN in anyones food and have the same effect.

        The differance between a person and a computer is people can learn. A computer can not. I played chess for many years, and I did not get better by reading books or studying past games. I got better by playing.

        Chess can never be reduced to a number of possible moves just like art can never be reduced to a number of strokes. God gave us something which seperates us from all other things on earth. We are unlike anything else.

        If all a computer can be is logic, I wonder if anyone has found a way to force a shutdown loop, to do something so illogical the computer can not continue.

        • God gave us something which seperates us from all other things on earth.

          A bad sense of spelling?

          If all a computer can be is logic, I wonder if anyone has found a way to force a shutdown loop, to do something so illogical the computer can not continue.

          Okay, you just don't know what you're talking about. The whole "unsolvalble geometric figure" thing doesn't exactly work, unless you've got a buggy program. Neither does solitaire. Giving a "sleep" command does seem to work for most computers, though,
        • If all a computer can be is logic, I wonder if anyone has found a way to force a shutdown loop, to do something so illogical the computer can not continue.

          I'm not sure what you mean by "all a computer can be is logic." If you mean that it can only follow logical arguments, I don't see that as a shortcoming. The way a computer brute-forces it's moves in a game is that it creates "game trees", where each node is a possible board state, and each branch is a possible move, either for them or thier opponent.
        • If all a computer can be is logic, I wonder if anyone has found a way to force a shutdown loop, to do something so illogical the computer can not continue.

          This isn't Star Trek. What you suggest is impossible because the chess computer is not trying to guess what the other person is doing or interpret the moves on the board in any other way. It is simply solving a heuristic function based on the positions of the pieces on the board, and the output of that function is the computer's next move.

  • 1. e4 (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    First move!

  • I dont get it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by __aaxwdb6741 ( 884633 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:00PM (#12910235) Journal
    I dont get it. Why is it so amazing that computers beat human beings in chess? Isnt chess all about logic and calculation? Arent computers all about logic and calculation?
    If both are true, then how come it is so amazing that a computer beat a human being in chess?

    Wouldnt it be more amazing if a human being beat a chess computer?
    • We could try pulling the plug ... no wait, that might provoke it into starting a nuclear war.

      In which case I for one welcome our new en-passanting overlords.

    • Why is it so amazing that computers beat human beings in chess?

      ...because no computer has been able to consistently beat the top chess players. It is amazing that computers that can evaluate millions of board positions per second can still lose to a human who can evaluate maybe tens of board positions per second. Go is even worse; the best go programs in the world are routinely defeated by mediocre go players. This means that either a) the human brain can do a lot more computation than we give it cred

      • Damn, and I'm routinely beaten by mediocre go programs :(

      • Re:I dont get it... (Score:3, Informative)

        by jbolden ( 176878 )
        b) our current best minmax alpha-beta game-playing algorithms are horribly suboptimal.

        We know (b) is the case. Human chess players are able to "prune" much more effeciently than computer players especially in terms of eliminating bad lines. Humans are capable of much more complex "chunking" calculation than our computers (i.e. I can queen the pawn in 2 tempos). Humans are able to perform much better pattern simplification (there is no threat to the queen side).
    • In the case of Go, computers perform abysmally compared to humans.

      While very high-end computer chess machines now play strong grandmaster chess, it takes relatively little practice to beat the best Go-playing computer.

      In chess, "search" is part of the computer algorithm, and it is hard in chess because the tree of possibilities gets big in a hurry.

      But in Go it is far worse.

      In chess there are (I think) 16 first pawn moves + 4 first knight moves, and the same holds for black --- so that there are 400 poss
      • While the search space may branch more quickly in Go, relative to chess, this is not the primary source of the difficulty of Go. The primary reason why Go is hard is that the results of any move are not fully apparent until the distant future.

        A blunder in chess will typically result in a loss of material or a significant measurable disadvantage within five moves or less, and often on the very next move. A blunder in Go may only become apparent forty moves later. Forty moves is well beyond the limits of cu
    • Because when people started researching artificial intelligence, chess playing was indentified as a problem requiring human-style hinsight.

      So, now that compuiter can beat grand chessmasters, it forces people to reconsider what is intelligence, or, alternatively, to admit that the computer simulates human insight in some form.

    • Re:I dont get it... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Frodo2002 ( 595920 )

      "Isnt chess all about logic and calculation?"

      I wish to repond to this. Chess (as played by humans) is definitely not ALL about logic and calculation. It is ALSO about creativity, ingenuity and occasionally heroism. That is the beauty of the game. To be able to study a game between two GMs and be able to see and appreciate those human qualities - that is what makes it special. I don't care if computers can finally calculate fast enough to beat the best human players. Chess is a lot more than that, o

  • I wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by the linux geek ( 799780 )
    Is it possible that a computer could compute every possible move, make a database of it, and win automatically every time?

    • Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hawkxor ( 693408 )
      In fact, i've heard that it's probably impossible for a perfect strategy in that sense to exist, as there aren't enough atoms in the universe to store the amount of data which would the computer would be required to hold.

    • werke (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mnemonic_ ( 164550 )
      Read about how chess computers work [howstuffworks.com]. There are 10^120 possible moves for a certain "tree" sequence of moves. Today's chess computers evaluate millions of moves per second, far short of all possible moves, due to computing limitations.

      It's interesting to note that both grandmasters and amateurs have been shown to think only 3-5 moves in the future, while computers calculate for 10-20. Despite that, humans are still competitive with computers in chess (losing some games, winning others), showing there's m
    • It's been proven that there is a perfect strategy for chess (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory [wikipedia.org]), but the number of variants is astronomically large (more than a number of atoms in the whole known Universe).

      However, it might be possible to create a quantum computer which computes the best strategy for 1000 turns (virtually an 'ideal' strategy). AFAIK, there are some researches on this topic.
    • This is exactly the idea of "solving [wikipedia.org]" a game. By analysis, you can determine how exactly a perfectly-played game will end. For example, you have most likely solved tic-tac-toe: you know that the person who goes first always wins, when they play properly, no matter *what* the other person does.

      Of course, TTT is slightly simpler than chess... That's why it's not yet been solved. Given the number of legal positions on the board, it is unlikely that a game like chess will ever be solved (by some estimate

      • Your Move - show me your guaranteed winning strategy.

        Start your move in a reply

        Ok - first off, you haven't even mastered Tic Tac Toe... I'll let you have the first move, and guarantee at best you will get a draw, of course if you make a mistake - I can win with the second.

    • Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by swilver ( 617741 )
      If Moore's law manages to hold another 100 years, computers will be fast enough to calculate all moves in a chess game in about an hour orso.

      However, that wouldn't mean they would automatically win. It's more likely that they could always force a draw, and only win if the opponent makes a mistake.

      Of course, Moore's law is highly unlikely to last for another century, as it is already showing signs of breaking down.

  • I think... (Score:2, Funny)

    by mogalpha ( 782997 )
    No one cares and or has any mod points today :)

  • It is inevitable... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Skiron ( 735617 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:04PM (#12910253)
    ... that computers will beat a man at chess all the time they are allowed to use a database on positions.

    The time to get scared is when a 'thinking' computer chess program does it all for scratch from the first move.

    Having said that, GNUChess 0wn35 me bigtime, the bugger.

    • scared (Score:4, Funny)

      by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamec@umich . e du> on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:12PM (#12910310) Homepage Journal
      Actually, the time to get scared is when a chess computer becomes sentient, creates an army of robots and enslaves the organic world. Our only hope then will be the chess grandmasters, academic athletes turned heroes of mankind.

  • In 50 years.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by btgreat ( 895041 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:06PM (#12910264)
    In 50 years will chess club be dominated by nerds who know how to build computers and write software or by the humans who take the time to learn the game? Society is becoming more and more oriented towards computers and I wouldnt be surprised if in the future people judge their skill based on who can write a better program for their computer, rather than knowing how to play the game itself. It's just too bad these computers don't give lessons.
    • People will know it, like today people do with draughts or even noughts and crosses (tick-tack-toe to americans). But I don't think there'll be serious players like there are today. I've been the county champion in my age group for the past three years. The last one was for lack of competition. In the time I've been playing competitively I've seen a decrease by at least 75% in the number of people competing in junior tournaments. Make no mistake, competitive chess among humans is dying.
    • The chess club is already dominated by nerds who know how to build computers and write software :)
    • Let me guess, you are a "nerd" and want recognition because of it? Well, tough luck! Society is based on people, and peoples' skill are judged based on how well you can comunicate those skill to other people. Most "nerds" are very intelegent, but the lack a key ability, charisma. Work on your charisma, everything will follow. Life is like AD&D, but on the game, as on real life, most "nerds" give little importance to that skill. I know I did for a very long time. Trying to improve my charisma in real l
      • Work on your charisma, everything will follow.

        Is there really such a thing as "improving your charisma"? From my (rather short) experience in life, I discovered that once you've mastered a subject, your work of communicating this knowledge is almost done: just speak about what you know but do it clearly (in good english or whatever you use instead) To me "charisma" is more like "technical skills + vocabulary" and I'm neither Steve Jobs nor Brad Pitt but I can talk to other people about what I do once I u

    • Re:In 50 years.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 )
      In 50 years will chess club be dominated by nerds who know how to build computers and write software or by the humans who take the time to learn the game? Society is becoming more and more oriented towards computers and I wouldnt be surprised if in the future people judge their skill based on who can write a better program for their computer, rather than knowing how to play the game itself. It's just too bad these computers don't give lessons.

      It is one of the reasons I hate playing chess online. There ar

  • Jessie Owens Outpaced by Motorbike (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nagora ( 177841 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:07PM (#12910272)
    Big deal.

    TWW

  • Hooray? (Score:3, Funny)

    by jackcarter ( 884148 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:08PM (#12910283)
    If a computer could do it 8 years ago, then with Moore's law, this is 1/(2^5) as interesting as it was then. Did it quickly by hand.

    • Re:Hooray? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WolfWithoutAClause ( 162946 )
      Deep Blue ran on purpose designed ASICs whereas Hydra runs on FPGAs which are slower, but more flexible. Turns out that the inherent slower speed of FPGAs and Moore's law roughly cancels.

      However, the chess technology in Hydra is 8 years newer in other respects, and so Hydra is able to look about 8 moves further ahead (albeit with slightly less accuracy, but it turns out it's a pretty big win anyway). So Hydra would be expected to comfortably beat Deep Blue, should they ever meet, which is unlikely in fact

  • Face it... (Score:2, Funny)

    by TheStick ( 847894 )
    From now on, we are sure Humans are dumb.

    Thank goodness I'm a Vulcan!

  • Other uninteresting things computers can do (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shobadobs ( 264600 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:11PM (#12910300)
    Computers can also multiply hundred-digit integers faster than humans.

    I'd like to see a computer beat the best Go players. Or how about a computer that can beat the best human chess players at Fischerandom chess
    • When computers beat top draughts players people said exactly that about chess. Go is going to fall, it's just a matter of time.
      • Yeah, it will. But will it happen because Go playing programs become smarter, or will it happen because computers become faster?
        • The programs will have to become smarter. Brute forcing does not work with go, you have on the order of 381 possibilities each move. 381^x gets very big very quickly. But I don't doubt the programs can get smart enough.

  • Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:11PM (#12910301) Journal
    Why even mention the Operating System in something like this? It's pretty much irrelevant what operating system you're using, in fact you could probably spend two days or so converting the program to run without any operating system at all.
    • The poster is probably a Linux fanbox and assumes that, had the computer been running any other operating sytem, it couldn't have done it.
    • Because the constitution of the machine that can achieve such a coveted triumph is very important. This is why IBM staged the original Deep Blue event against Kasparov - to raise publicity for their equipment.

      This applies to software as it does to hardware.

      • Re:Linux? (Score:3, Informative)

        by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 )

        This applies to software as it does to hardware.

        No it doesn't. Do you know anything about how operating systems work? Which part do you think matters here? I/O? Just hook up a serial cable - I/O is built into the bios. Memory allocation? I seriously doubt this software is allocating memory on the fly. Process management? Why bother having more than one process? The operating system is completely meaningless. Unless you're saying Linux now has chess playing system calls built in.

  • ... as the web site crawls to a halt.

  • Yeah, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by chriswaclawik ( 859112 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:16PM (#12910328)
    In my mind, there will always be only one true grandmaster. [wikipedia.org]

    I'm still waiting for the day where a supercomputer can win a rap battle against a human...

  • Phew, for a minute then I thought the machines had risen and were exterminating mankind.

    You see, for some people we don't just not RTFA, but we also don't RTF subject.

    Often i'll not even read the title and just imagine up my own interesting news for nerds.

    Like:

    Monkeys become sentient and megalomaniacal. Invades Sweden for no apparent reason.
    RIAA sues *insert file sharing company here* the *insert organisation name* is outraged, *insert frail child or elderly person* shocked.

  • Computer vs. Computer (Score:2, Interesting)

    by alewar ( 784204 )
    It can be interesting to see a championship of computers vs. computers, with similar technology but different programming.
    To watch a computer defeating a man playing chess is not even interesting anymore, is like trying to do multiplications faster than a calculator (I know some people claim that).
  • now if we can just get a machine to 'confirm you're not a script' by typing the seven letters shown in the image.

  • A far better contest is compression. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:28PM (#12910394) Homepage Journal
    Compression is a far better basis for intelligence competition than chess, the Turing test or even SAT verbal analogy tests [kuro5hin.org].

    Marcus Hutter's AIXI paper [idsia.ch] provides a proof that if an agent [wikipedia.org] is a good model for human behavior, and the universe is computable, that the most intelligent program is the smallest program that losslessly compresses the set of observations of the universe.

    I've formalized a prize competition based on this criterion as the C-Prize [geocities.com], modeled after the Methusela Mouse Prize [mprize.org]. The big difference is that instead of lifespan the metric is intelligence. Here is the currently published C-Prize criteria:

    Since all technology prize awards are geared toward solving crucial problems, the most crucial technology prize award of them all would be one that solves the rest of them:

    The C-Prize -- A prize that solves the artificial intelligence problem.

    The C-Prize award criterion is as follows:

    Let anyone submit a program that produces, with no inputs, one of the major natural language corpora as output.

    S = size of uncompressed corpus
    P = size of program outputting the uncompressed corpus
    R = S/P (the compression ratio).

    Award monies in a manner similar to the M-Prize [mprize.org]:

    Previous record ratio: R0
    New record ratio: R1=R0+X
    Fund contains: $Z at noon GMT on day of new record
    Winner receives: $Z * (X/(R0+X))

    Compression program and decompression program are made open source.

    Explanation A very severe meta-problem with artificial intelligence is the question of how one can define the quality of an artificial intelligence.

    Fortunately there is an objective technique for ranking the quality of artificial intelligence:

    Kolmogorov Complexity

    Kolmogorov Complexity is a mathematically precise formulation of Ockham's Razor, which basically just says "Don't over-simplify or over-complicate things." More formally, the Kolmogorov Complexity of a given bit string is the minimum size of a Turing machine program required to output, with no inputs, the given bit string.

    Any set of programs which purport to be the standards of artificial intelligence can be compared by simply comparing their Artificial Intelligence Quality. Their AIQs can be precisely measured as follows:

    Take an arbitrarily large corpus of writings sampled from the world wide web. This corpus will establish the equivalent of an IQ test. Give the AIs the task of compressing this corpus into the smallest representation. This representation must be a program that, taking no outside inputs, produces the exact sample it compressed. The AIQ of an AI is simply the ratio of the size of the uncompressed writings to the size of the program that, when executed, produces the uncompressed writings.

    In other words, the AIQ is the compression ratio achieved by the AI on the AIQ test.

    The reason this works as an AI quality test is that compression requires predictive modeling. If you can predict what someone is going to say, you have modeled their mental processes and by inference have a superset of their mental faculties.

    Mechanics The C-Prize is to be modeled after the Methusela Mouse Prize or M-Prize [mprize.org] where people make pledges of money to the prize fund. If you would like to help with the set up and/or administration of this prize award similar to the M-Prize let me know by email [mailto].

  • OS used is irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)

    by anything lemon ( 820119 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:28PM (#12910396)
    Regardless of which operating system was used in this chess match, the sole determining factor is the hardware. Remember that Deep Blue defeated Kasparov with the more aesthetic MacOS, even though Kasparov is a more respected member of the chess community.

    Linux zealots will cling to this "small victory", but software is only a means to an end.

  • The computer did it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by glwtta ( 532858 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:29PM (#12910400) Homepage
    Here's the thing, all the computer "did" was run electricity through a circuit - an electric heater does the same thing.

    The hardware and software engineers who built and programmed that computer were the ones who achieved the victory - the computer has no understanding of chess, nor in fact any capacity of understanding.

    Now if they designed a general purpose AI that then learned to play chess and trounced a great-grand master (or whatever they are called), that would be a computer defeating a human.

  • Yeah, so? (Score:3, Informative)

    by ian rogers ( 760349 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:31PM (#12910407)
    I could beat the computer in a boxing match.

    Anyways, everybody knows a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of brains.
  • How does the human rate on performance/Watt compared to the machine? Isn't that what's important these days?

  • Yawn... (Score:3, Funny)

    by flood6 ( 852877 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:36PM (#12910436) Homepage Journal
    So what. Chess is so one-diminsional. I wonder how good that machine would do at a real skill game, like Rock, Paper, Scissors.
  • I am deeply ashamed that we have developed machines that are stronger than us. Clearly, because machines can outlift and outwork us, we have lost our purpose as humans.

    And computers can outcalculate us in highly linear situations. It is time to pull the plug on humanity, and let the chess programs and heavy lifting equipment to collaborate...
  • The first american is not listed until #19. That is not possible. There are 7 russians on the list before the first american. This has to be a lie.

    Let me tell you my logic.

    The USA has the biggest economy, the best army, we do everything the best. It is not like we steal or lie or cheat to deprive others of what is theirs.

    Okay... there was a heavy element of sarcasm there.

    But honestly, looking at that list, is there anything it can tell us about a countries intellectual power? Or could it be just

    • Re:Top 100 list?? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by nomadic ( 141991 )
      Does being good at chess correlate to anything else? Does chess score indicate IQ? Does chess scores indicate earning power? Anyone have a t-shirt that says "I play chess... Love me before I become rich"?

      There is a definite correlation between skill at chess and interest in playing chess. That's pretty much it.

  • Why a Computer Can't Win. (Usually) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dixie Flatliner ( 850959 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:45PM (#12910472)
    I rarely post, but I thought this might be worth reminding people of.

    While computers are easily tactical masters of chess playing - in that they can immediately anaylze all possible moves availible in a given play, and determine possible outcomes, their fallacy comes in strategy, because, put simply, they don't know how to win.

    What is a good move? Is it one that results in a opposing piece's defeat? If so - what value should that piece be assigned? Indeed, what is the value of _any_ piece at any given time on the boards - why should a machine choose one set of perfect moves over another - in almost every way a computer cannot determine the long term value of a move.

    This is remedied somewhat by having pre-played game analysis at the disposal of the machine, but in almost every case the computer program requires serious recalibration between matches to prevent a human player from adapting to a strong tactical game. It is by no stretch that computers can be considered inferior in almost every way to a strong human player.

    Kasparov posited Advanced Chess as the ultimate play form; the tactical mastery of a computer, mixed with the multilevel strategy of a grandmaster player, making for a game of sublime subtley and perfection.
  • Then we'll see. Until then you can't even reliably say that computers are better than humans at playing chess.

  • Hydra is not the ultimate chess entity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Redshift ( 7411 ) * on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:52PM (#12910511)
    Hydra performed very badly in the recent Freestyle Chess competition run by ChessBase - competitors were a variety of grandmasters and amateurs assisted by databases and computers. I other words, any form of cheating was acceptable, all that mattered were the moves on the board.

    The two Hydra machines did not even make it into the final sixteen. Moreover, the eventual winners were a couple of amateurs using pretty ordinary PCs running over-the-counter chess programs. On the way to the title they beat a selection of computer- and supergrandmaster-assisted grandmasters.

    On this evidence the "strongest chess entity on the planet" is a team consisting of a New Hampshire database administrator + a soccer coach + 3 ordinary PCs.

    Links:

    Hydra knocked out [chessbase.com]

    Final result [chessbase.com]

    Winners debriefing [chessbase.com]

    • It should be noted that the "over-the-counter chess programs" you mention are Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Chess Tiger. These are not second-rate programs by any means; versions of Fritz and Junior have tied Kramnik and Kasparov in tournaments (and beaten them in individual games). So while impressive, it's not all that surprising that they would do well.

  • game 37 on fics (Score:3, Informative)

    by sfcat ( 872532 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @03:57PM (#12910536)
    You can watch the current game live on fics (free internet chess server). It is interesting to see how Adams has adapted his strategy thoughout this series. This game, it appears (I'm not a grand master so take this with a grain of salt) that Adams traded agressively to shorten the game. At the time of this post, Adams was down a pawn (1 rook and 3 pawns to 1 rook and 2 pawns). It also appears that Adams should be able to even the material in the next couple of moves even though Adams is currently in check. Anyway, log on to www.freechess.org and ob 37 if you want to watch.

  • obFuturama Quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @04:22PM (#12910639) Homepage Journal
    Conan O'Brien's Head: Yeah, well at least I have something you'll never have! A soul!
    Bender: Big deal!
    Conan O'Brien's Head: And freckles!
    Bender: (crying) Whaa...ha..ha...

  • Advanced Chess: Human-Computer Collaboration (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:24PM (#12911153) Journal
    Seeing so many posts describing this as a "man versus machine" thing compels me to mention advanced chess [wikipedia.org], a new form of chess recently proposed by Garry Kasparov. The gist of it is that instead of humans and computers working either alone or against each other, a human player and a computer player team up. Personally, I think competitions like that are great for exploring how humans and computers can achieve a better symbiosis [betterhumans.com] with each other, taking advantage of the strengths of each.

    From wikipedia:

    Advanced Chess is a relatively new form of chess, first introduced by grandmaster Garry Kasparov, with the objective of a human player and a computer chess program joining forces and competing as a team against other such pairs. Many Advanced Chess proponents have stressed that Advanced Chess has merits in:

    * increasing the level of play to heights never before seen in chess;
    * producing blunder-free games with the qualities and the beauty of both perfect tactical play and highly meaningful strategic plans;
    * giving the viewing audience a remarkable insight into the thought processes of strong human chess players and strong chess computers, and the combination thereof.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Oh what wouldn't I give to be spat at in the face..." -- a prisoner in "Life of Brian"

Close