Kasparov and Deep Junior

This is a discussion on Kasparov and Deep Junior within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; The deciding 6th match is on ESPN2 right now, if you're interested. I don't know much about chess, but I ...

  1. #1
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825

    Kasparov and Deep Junior

    The deciding 6th match is on ESPN2 right now, if you're interested. I don't know much about chess, but I do know enough to say these announcers are retarded.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,640

    Re: Kasparov and Deep Junior

    Originally posted by Govtcheez
    The deciding 6th match is on ESPN2 right now, if you're interested. I don't know much about chess, but I do know enough to say these announcers are retarded.
    I was interested in Deep Blue, Has it been beaten yet? I know
    it has been put away in a museum. A shame really i think it was
    a masterpiece of AI.

  3. #3
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    I'm pretty sure they retired Deep Blue right after it beat Kasparov. Supposedly Deep Junior's better than Deep Blue, though. DB used a brute force method to get moves, and DJ sounds like it analyzes them differently.

    I guess Kasparov's winning, but I can't tell.

    The announcers have not gotten any better.

  4. #4
    RoD
    RoD is offline
    Redundantly Redundant RoD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    6,331
    What is it? A pc vc pc match?? i'm lost.

  5. #5
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    No, it's Garry Kasparov vs. a PC.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,640
    Originally posted by RoD
    What is it? A pc vc pc match?? i'm lost.
    No, The world champion chess player (right?) playing against a
    computer, I'd love to see it

  7. #7
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    Yeah, its the world champion in chess vs the world champion computer. They've played 5 games already with the score tied, and this is the final game.

    Go Kasparov!!

  8. #8
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Wired's got a flash animation that shows the game so far - it looks like they're updating it pretty quickly after every move.

  9. #9
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    It's ended in a draw. Dammit.

  10. #10
    Registered User Vber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    807
    Still Kasparov shows that's not too easy to beat him.

  11. #11
    Administrator webmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    967
    This result doesn't come as too much of a surprise. It's harder and harder to get an advantage over a computer -- Kasparov's style, no matter how good he is, doesn't fit the typical anti-computer approach of using clever positional play to accumulate slight advantages that computers have difficulty noticing. You could also make the case that Kasparov's playing strength has diminished; while I haven't been keeping up with the latest news, he did lose a match to Kramnick about a year ago.

    Moreover, people make too much of a big deal out of the original Deep Blue match victory. Kasparov threw the game away with a silly blunder that any number of players could have exploited. The real victory in that match for the computer was that it beat Kasparov in a more strategic position in one of the earlier games. If you really want to set up the "human versus computer" match testing the best versus the best, I think I would want to see Capablanca versus Deep Blue. Capa's style was imminently suited for play against computers, and he possessed the tactical acumen to back up his positional understanding. The fact that he was at least as good as Alexander Alekhine (a player of immense combinative skill) suggests that he could hold his own with players whose style would be analogous to that of a computer.

  12. #12
    Much older and wiser Fountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Engeeeerland
    Posts
    1,158
    Possibly true Webmaster, but I believed that the programming of such software was without prejudice-ie it doesnt matter who the comp is playing, how the game progresses etc.

    That was unclear-I meant that I believed the software analyses EVERY situation it is faced with in the same way, looking ahead in the game like only a comp can. So, anybodys 'style' of play should have little outcome on the result.

    Dont know about theory etc, but the most likely result every time should be a draw.

    There is a limit on how good the comp can actually be because people like Kasparov know it all as well, and there is only a certain amount of moves available etc.

    I speak as a player of decent ability-see previous threads-and I just cannot see any software being able to regularly conquer the best human players. Then again I cant see the best human minds being able to beat the software. More draws I guess.
    Such is life.

  13. #13
    Administrator webmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    967
    Computers have limited range of vision -- they can only see so many ply (half-moves) ahead. Certain players are better suited for playing positions where brute force calculations do not help a computer that doesn't have a very good function for evaluating the merits of apparently even positions.

    A player like Kasparov plays to the strength of the computer -- he attacks, so the computer's ability to calculate deeply makes it more dangerous for him. A player like Capablanca would play positions that offset the advantage of being able to see far into the position, relying on his intuitive grasp of the position more than his ability to calculate.

    In games such a Go, which rely more on a player's understanding of the position than his ability to "read" ahead, computers are rarely at the level of 9-Dans (a low professional rank). Playing chess in a positional style is a way of reducing chess to the same sort of game; the computer sees the same number of possibilities, but finds it harder to choose truly good "stragetic" moves.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    552
    >I don't know much about chess, but I do know enough to say these announcers are retarded.

    Why do you think that? I thought they were very good. They tried to make the game accessible to those with little experience with chess by making analogies to boxing, football, tennis, etc, ... what did you expect from ESPN

    >I know it has been put away in a museum

    Actually It was dismantled right after the game. No one knows what the computer was thinking or how it was programmed... theres alot of controversy surrounding that match (I read somewhere that kaspy even went as far as suggesting that a GM was coaching the computer). Thats the main reason FIDE stepped in to referee the match, to make the match fair for both parties (mainly the human)

    >Yeah, its the world champion in chess

    Kaspy lost the world title to Kramnik (i think it was against him), although he is the highest ever rated played.

    >and I just cannot see any software being able to regularly conquer the best human players

    I think there will come a time when humans will be no match for computers (they already arent, except for the very best human players). Although it will require progammers to be able to mimick how a person like kasparov uses "intuition" to decide what are favorable positions or what will likely be favorable later on.
    C Code. C Code Run. Run Code Run... Please!

    "Love is like a blackhole, you fall into it... then you get ripped apart"

  15. #15
    ggs
    ggs is offline
    C > C++ duders ggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    435
    > computers are rarely at the level of 9-Dans (a low professional rank).

    Actually, computers don't even reach into the professional ranks :l

    Also, 9-Dan professional is the highest possible rank. 9-Dan amateur is just below 1-Dan professional.. and then you go from 1 kyu (highest) to 25 kyu (lowest).. I don't think any computers are able to reach above high level kyu ability.

    Er.. yeah
    .sect signature

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21