Chess - 2070 CPUs vs 1 GM 248
jvarsoke writes "ChessBrain.net broke the world's record for 'largest number of distributed computers used to play a single game' by holding a chess match between Danish GM Peter Heine Nielsen and the equivalent of SETI@home (which similarly, has some people looking for a Mate). 2070 CPU's from 56 countries aided Black by running the chess program Beowulf, including a couple of University clusters. Their supernode ran Linux, and MySQL. The game was relayed by FICS. Results can be viewed here(1) and here(2)."
For those too lazy to read the article... (Score:5, Informative)
Here is mirror of the game :) (Score:5, Informative)
Guinness record attempt, 30.01.2004
1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.e4 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 a5 8.Re1 exd4 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.Bg5 Nc6 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.f3 Qd7 13.Qd2 Rfe8 14.Rac1 h5 15.Kh1 Nh7 16.Bh6 Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Re5 18.Nd5 Rae8 19.Qd2 b6 20.Bd3 Qd8 21.Rf1 Nf6 22.b3 Bb7 23.Qc2 Nd7 24.f4 R5e6 25.e5 c6
Bullshit... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, it should be obvious that your line of reasoning is totally bogus. The totality of possible moves in chess is simply incomputable and somehow magically trimming this tree to "good" moves still leaves a fundamentally unmemorizable realm of possibilities even at only ten moves depth.
Obligatory Slashdot Comment (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway apparently it worked! (ie not a cluster in that sense either)
If it WAS implemented on the clustering technology we-all-know-and-love as Beowulf, would that make it a Beowulf-Squared?
And, of course, we have to ask the (obvious) question(s)
PS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bullshit... (Score:5, Informative)
" If you were to fully develop the entire tree for all possible chess moves, the total number of board positions is about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,0
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
000,000,000,000, or 10120, give or take a few. That's a very big number. For example, there have only been 1026 nanoseconds since the Big Bang. There are thought to be only 1075 atoms in the entire universe. When you consider that the Milky Way galaxy contains billions of suns, and there are billions of galaxies, you can see that that's a whole lot of atoms. That number is dwarfed by the number of possible chess moves. Chess is a pretty intricate game!"
Re:PS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GM vs. thousands of humans? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GM vs. thousands of humans? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GM vs. thousands of humans? (Score:3, Informative)
It was done on the Zone.
http://classic.zone.msn.com/kasparov/Home.asp
Re:Here is mirror of the game :) (Score:5, Informative)
26.f5 gxf5 27.Bxf5 cxd5 28.Bxe6 Rxe6 29.Rxf7 Kxf7 30.Qh7+ Ke8 31.Qxh5+ Ke7 32.Qg5+ Ke8 33.Qh5+ Ke7 34.Qh7+ 1/2-1/2.
Losing to Computers (Score:3, Informative)
Incidentally, there is a new documentary, Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine [imdb.com] about the Deep Blue rematch, which I had the opportunity to see at the US premier a few weekends back. I'd link to the review I wrote on my blog, but I don't think the sysadmin would be very happy with me if I did.
Re:Bullshit... (Score:3, Informative)
For example, there have only been 1026 nanoseconds since the Big Bang. There are thought to be only 1075 atoms in the entire universe.
Mental note: <sup> doesn't work on /.
Re:Bullshit... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Understanding vs. Processing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GM vs. thousands of humans? (Score:3, Informative)
I seriously doubt that the group would win. Some of the moves suggested by individuals in the group would likely be the best choice. But more votes would probably come in for another move - one which doesn't hold up as well.
Some time back, I saw an average or slightly above average player play "everyone at the event" by allowing anyone who wanted to make one move in the game. Many people felt this put him at a disadvantage. But it actually gave him a huge advantage. 10 people make make reasonable moves - but all it takes is one guy to make a really stupid move, and now the individual has a big advantage over the "group".
Chess is a game of mistakes. If neither side makes a mistake, draws are very common. That's why when you see games between two GM's, you see a lot of draws. In games where both are "average" players (not serious chess players) then mistakes are common, and generally the guy that made the last mistake is going to lose. (Not always - especially if he already had a demanding lead at the time.)
Things that look very minor - or which are not noticable at all to the average player - are very important to top players. Letting 5,000 average players vote on each move pretty much guarantees that any slightly-above average player would win.
Re:Draw game against 2070 CPUs? (Score:2, Informative)