Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Classic Games (Games)

Computers Win at Man vs Machine Championship 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)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Computers Win at Man vs Machine Championship

Comments Filter:
  • congrats (Score:2, Insightful)

    The only computer loss in this tournament, to a 14 year old kid... cheers to him!
  • Why is that depressing? I would have said stunning -- and then done a little dance to show how undepressing I find this progress.
    • 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.
    • 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 computer

      • 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

      • It won't get scary until computers can code better than people...
    • Re:Depressing? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Reapy ( 688651 )
      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. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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? A
    • Death, taxes, and Go mentioned in every slashdot article on chess.
    • 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
    • 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
  • 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).
  • Puny humans, taste defeat at the hands of our version of your Commodore 64!
  • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @01:54PM (#10537528) Journal
    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!
  • Depressing? Hardly. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ZeeCog ( 641179 )
    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
  • Anyone else amazed? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Warpedcow ( 180300 ) on Friday October 15, 2004 @03:39PM (#10538824) Homepage Journal
    Is anyone else amazed that the winner, Fritz 8, was running on a mere 1.7GHZ laptop???
  • If the computers didn't design the computer programs playing the games, then I'd say either way is a win for humans.
    • 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    (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.

Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter