View Full Version : Kasparov and Deep Junior

02-07-2003, 05:06 PM
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.

Travis Dane
02-07-2003, 05:10 PM
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.

02-07-2003, 05:14 PM
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.

02-07-2003, 05:15 PM
What is it? A pc vc pc match?? i'm lost.

02-07-2003, 05:18 PM
No, it's Garry Kasparov vs. a PC.

Travis Dane
02-07-2003, 05:18 PM
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:(

02-07-2003, 05:27 PM
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!!

02-07-2003, 05:29 PM
Wired's got a flash animation that shows the game so far - it looks like they're updating it pretty quickly after every move.

02-07-2003, 05:31 PM
It's ended in a draw. Dammit.

02-07-2003, 05:38 PM
Still Kasparov shows that's not too easy to beat him.

02-07-2003, 05:47 PM
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.

02-07-2003, 06:16 PM
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.

02-07-2003, 08:05 PM
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.

02-07-2003, 09:13 PM
>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.

02-07-2003, 10:22 PM
> 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 :)

02-07-2003, 10:48 PM
Yeah, Kasparov lost the world championships to Kramnik two years ago. It was more of a testament to Kramniks preparation than anything though, since he came in with openings that Kasparov was totally unprepared for. Since then Kasparov has regrouped and has once again proven that he is the best player in the world, winning many tournaments including ones Kramnik participated in, and he'll retake the throne again when he likely meets against Kramnik later on this year in the World Championships.

You're right though that he isn't the world champion, my bad :) I do think he is the best player in the world, Kramnik looked horrible in the tournament just held in Wijk Aan Zee.

I do disagree though that Deep Blue was unprejudiced, the thing was created more or less as an Anti-Kasparov machine. It was "trained" to play moves and go into positions that were very much against his style of play. I think many other weaker players would have faired better against it, although who really knows since it got dismantled. Most other computer programs aren't prejudiced though.

I think it'll be a long time before they make an unbeatable computer. The problem is that there are just too many positions that really need to be understood 20-30 moves deep, something far beyond what a computer can see at this point. Kasparov showed time and time again that a computer just doesn't understand the idea of a "plan", as it constantly made moves that made no sense when considering previous moves. Unfortunately he just wasn't able to exploit this weakness this time :)

02-08-2003, 12:03 AM
What do you think of Viswanath Anand..

02-08-2003, 12:16 AM
Ohhhh.. Chess ?? Took 3 years from my life. Nothing more to say.

But I guess still I am getting the benefit of being a former chess player. Chess has lots of good things for programming.

Originally posted by vasanth
What do you think of Viswanath Anand..

Do you know about Grand Master Niaz Morshed, First GM in this region and he is from Bangladesh, when he was only 17 (I guess)
Even before Viswanath Anand (First GM from India)
But, Niaz failed to continue because of financial future in Chess in Bangladesh.

02-08-2003, 12:23 AM
Being from bangaladesh, dont you love Cricket, not Chess, Zahid?

02-08-2003, 01:20 AM
Actually I'm a veteran chess player, I had to leave Chess in 1995 because of my family, my career, I got no financial / mental support from others around me. Once I thought I would be a Grand Master. Anyway.. that's history. Chess is long lost love for me.

I do love to watch Cricket. In Bangladesh still Football is the most popular as Cricket. I'm eager to World Cup. Today is the opening.

Our Schedule is:
Bangladesh Vs Canada Feb 11, 2003
Bangladesh Vs Sri Lanka Feb 14, 2003
Bangladesh Vs West Indies Feb 18, 2003
Bangladesh Vs South Africa Feb 22, 2003
Bangladesh Vs New Zealand Feb 26, 2003
Bangladesh Vs Kenya Mar 01, 2003

Lucky that no match with Australia ;)

02-08-2003, 09:58 AM
Anand is good, just a bit streaky. He was having a terrible year up until this last tournament. No match for the top dogs though!