Kramnik and Deep Fritz Draw, Tied Before Final Game 384
iskander writes "Man and Machine were content to draw in game 7 of the Brains in Bahrain match. Now it's all down to the final game, in which Kramnik will enjoy the advantage of playing with white. It is worth noting that game 6, in which Kramnik may have resigned too early, was found to be a probable draw with best play, and that Kasparov lost to Deep Blue by tossing a drawable game. However, whereas Kasparov could only excuse himself (unconvincingly) by claiming that Deep Blue had been assisted by a human during play, Kramnik could simply request the adjudication of game 6 on the grounds of infractions committed by Deep Fritz, who is rumored to have heckled Kramnik with its Shakespearean chatter througout the game. :) So, will Dirty Fritz win it all or will Humanity's champion "rise above the chatter" and win back the crown for us? If you think you know, you may want to place a bet or register your opinion on the ChessLines survey soon, because the match ends tomorrow."
Links to all the games (Score:5, Informative)
October 04, Game 1: Draw ----------- Article [62.73.175.4]
October 06, Game 2: Kramnik wins --- Article [62.73.175.4]
October 08, Game 3: Kramnik wins --- Article [62.73.175.4] Analysis [62.73.175.4]
October 10, Game 4: Draw ----------- Article [62.73.175.4] Analysis [62.73.175.4]
October 13, Game 5: Fritz wins ----- Article [62.73.175.4]
October 15, Game 6: Fritz wins ----- Article [62.73.175.4] Analysis [62.73.175.4]
October 17, Game 7: Draw ----------- Article [62.73.175.4]
October 19, Game 8: ?
Re:Links to all the games (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Links to all the games (Score:5, Interesting)
Positive moderation, people! Positive, not negative!
That said, it looks like to me like Fritz is going to win this one. I would say that Karmnik is showing signs of fatigue from playing against a 'perfect' oponnent. If I were him, I'd try to take a few days off before the next match to regain his mental and emotional endurance for the last match.
Re:Links to all the games (Score:4, Insightful)
If that happens, I wonder how many of the people on slashdot who predicted an easy win for Kramnik are going to admit they were wrong. Knowing the narcissists here, not many I bet.
A sample of quotes:
For those that are interested, the verdict among the chess world is that the computer is going to be exposed as a joke in this match.
My money is on Kramnik, he will probably not lose a single game.
human mind v/s computer (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true (Score:5, Interesting)
As for learning from mistakes, there are chess programs with libraries of games that add games they are playing to the library - doesn't that count as learning from mistakes? How about multiple-heuristic chess programs that modify their heuristics in-game to try to match their style to the style of their opponents?
Re:human mind v/s computer (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I read an article sometime (not sure where, sorry) that the best, professional, chess players have a large stock of stratergies that they remember and apply to the game in hand, and that amateurs form sratergies during the game.
I'm not sure about this, however, as young gifted children, with very little experience, can also be exceptional players.
Re:human mind v/s computer (Score:5, Insightful)
mistakes? Is that so? How much do you know
about state-of-the-art in AI and the
design of Deep Fritz in particular?
Re:human mind v/s computer (Score:4, Funny)
If computers can learn from mistakes, then how come my Win98 box keeps making the same kernel32.dll error? I can't even begin to imagine the code needed to make Windows learn from it's mistakes... likely an order of magnitude higher than the computing power needed for chess...
Flash 6 Linux player to watch the final match (Score:4, Informative)
7th and final game? (Score:2, Informative)
Can anyone back me up or correct me? Thanks.
Re:7th and final game? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:7th and final game? (Score:2)
There is some chance that being second to start actually gives you the advantage but it's virtually impossible to prove.
Re:7th and final game? (Score:3, Informative)
White vs. Black (Score:5, Funny)
I am in no way a chess master (or even a decent player) but even I know that there is an advantage to playing white.
Yeah, bascially if you're black while playing chess you run the risk of racist cops coming up to you and harrasing you (asking to see your ID, being told to 'move along', and so forth). It tends to break your concentration.
GMD
Re:7th and final game? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:7th and final game? (Score:3, Insightful)
The first few moves decide what kind of game it will be. If you know your opponent's strengths and weaknesses it can be a very big advantage.
Re:7th and final game? (Score:5, Funny)
No he doesn't, vulgarian.
Anecdotal: "I played white last week and kicked the guys ass"
Empirical: "Examining all recorded tournament games at the master level and above, players playing white win far more frequently."
Proof: "UberFritz version 5000 has examined all possible braches of the game tree, and white can force a win in 243 moves."
Fritzy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fritzy (Score:5, Funny)
Kramnik had little time left... (Score:5, Informative)
Just to clarify (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to see some game played by grandmasters when in "time trouble", I'd suggest picking up the Mammoth Book of Chess by Graham Burgess for some excellent - and amusing - examples. You don't have all the time in the world - chess is a balance between concentration and speed.
Well, (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion Deep Fritz will never beat Kramnik in a Berlin Defence. [...] IMHO the team should try either switching to 1.d4 [...]
That's what Fritz has been playing in his last two White games, with rather better results than his first two Whites. Your comment would have made better sense a week ago :)
Re:Well, (Score:3, Interesting)
(I do agree that I could see Kramnik drawing every time with the Berlin)
"Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf!" (Score:5, Funny)
See below for an example of the Deep Fritz "heckling" the human player, Kramnik. I'm surprised Kramnik was able to restrain himself from reaching across the table and ripping out its power supply.
Fritz: "Is this the scourge of France? Is this the Kramnik, so much fear'd abroad That with his name the mothers still their babes? I see report is fabulous and false: I thought I should have seen some Hercules, A second Hector, for his grim aspect, And large proportion of his strong-knit limbs.
Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf! It cannot be this weak and writhled shrimp Should strike such terror to his enemies."
Kramnik, normally not one to be drawn out by such taunts, proceeds to go into a long think. After a few minutes of this, Fritz disrupts him again.
And on, and on....
Re:"Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf!" (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose the entire event is saturated with symbolism though, for it was the actions of Fritz' human programmers which allowed it tongue with which to speak.
It really rather mirrors the choices a god would face when creating a people.
One might surmise that we, as humans, only commit sin as god has seen fit for us to do so. That it is his will that we sin, suffer, and make others suffer.
But then, I am no god, and I am no believer in god...
Heckling - Lexx style (Score:3, Funny)
"We are only chess pieces in a continuum, and can only think inside the box."
"Yes, let us savour your mistake."
"We said resign! Not commit suicide!!"
You gotta watch it to understand. It's truly bizzare.
Re:"Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf!" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"Alas, this is a child, a silly dwarf!" (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, so that was Shakespeare in what, original
Klingon?
Game Tree (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it would be huge and take a long time to traverse, but isn't chess just like tic-tack-toe? Just on a much-much larger scale. And wouldn't it be a matter of time before it is impossible to beat a computer at chess? Just like you can't beat one at tic-tack-toe? What am I missing?
Re:Game Tree (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Game Tree (Score:2)
You sound like Bill Gates when he mentioned that thing about 640K being enough for anyone..
There may be too many possible boards to express with current computer technology (which may or may not be true - supercomputers built for analyzing weather patterns deal with huge amounts of data all the time) but saying that there will never be a computer capable of doing so is pretty short-sighted.
Re:Game Tree (Score:5, Interesting)
10^80
Ouch.
For all we know, it might be that white or black can always win with perfect play (although most people guess perfect play on both sides will produce a draw, but we don't know, even though there clearly is an answer).
Re:Game Tree (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Game Tree (Score:3, Informative)
Sun explodes: 5 x 10^9
Computer finishes chess game tree: 3 x 10^61
Re:Game Tree (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Game Tree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Game Tree (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Game Tree (Score:2)
It's like trying to factor products of large prime numbers; sure, you can solve the problem, but it would take longer than the oldest estimates for the age of the universe to do it. It's real, real big.
Re:Game Tree (Score:5, Informative)
There are 20 possibilities for a first move:
Now there are also 20 possibilities for a response, that's already 400 possibilities for the first move and answer.
If you disregard the fact that the first moves may open new possibilities and keep calculating with 20 possibilities then the third move has already 8000 possibilities, the next one 160.000
After only 10 moves (5 on each side) this number alredy grows to 104.900.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 and the game has just started.
You would need a big Beowulf Cluster to build such a tree.
Well... Re:Game Tree (Score:2)
Re:Game Tree (Score:5, Informative)
You are absolutely right - this is basically how chess programs work. As many other have pointed out, it is impossible to calculate all the moves for a game. But contrary to some posts, the strategy is not meaningless. The computer will make a game tree say 5 moves ahead, then discard all of the inplausible moves, and go down another couple of levels (there is, of course, a lot of thinking that goes into specifying exactly which paths should be discarded and a lot of other details)
And wouldn't it be a matter of time before it is impossible to beat a computer at chess?
Yes, this is exactly what has happened. Only a few people in the world can deal with a computer that evaluates all possible moves 5 or more steps ahead.
Tor
Re:Game Tree (Score:4, Informative)
Gotta disagree here. A lot of programs look at positions more than 5 moves deep, even programs on the palm pilot can do this, and they are certainly beatable by a decent player (turn on evaluations in GNUChess). I find the same principles apply at the lower level, i.e. avoid complexities and the positional play is weak.
The point is, most humans can look 5 moves ahead in the few variations that matter in a given position, but the advantage is that the general pattern of the resulting position is easier for a human to value, because we can do this at a glance from pattern recognition. The value of a position is of course dependent on the moves that can be played after it, but if the computer is not looking any further ahead, the valuation of the position is generally not as accurate as human perception. Human evaluation is also effectively looking at future moves, its just we take a big shortcut.
The reason why computers beat humans regularly are that they generally look much deeper than 5 moves, especially in important lines (they discard some lines they don't think matter at the point of 'quiescence' and concentrate on important ones), and thus are trying to value a final position that is more developed than the position a human player would be evaluating.
Hmm.. Naughty Computers.... (Score:4, Funny)
"At first it looked like Deep Fritz was in deep trouble. "This sort of position is our worst fear," said Fritz programmer Frans Morsch. The position was closed and Kramnik was massing his forces for a typical anti-computer crush."
This sort of position is our worst fear
I'm curious as to which position it was... Missionary? Queen on Top? With a name like Deep Fritz, one really has to wonder.
Text of the "Shakespearean chatter" article (Score:4, Informative)
Server... is... slowing... so here's the text:
Did Deep Fritz use Shakespeare to heckle the World Champion?
It is an interesting theory: the Fritz team installed the latest chatter files during the Man vs Machine event in Bahrain, causing the machine to talk to the world champion in authentic Shakespearean verse during the game. The historical chatter drove Kramnik to distraction and prompted his ill-fated Morphy-esque knight sacrifice. That, in any case, ist how Schakespearean scholar and chess addict Michael Fischer tells it in his special report.
Kramnik versus Deep Fritz, match game 6
While the reports have not been confirmed, there has been some talk of the Fritz team having employed a clever diversionary tactic in Game Six to unsettle the World Champion, Vladimir Kramnik. Before the game, programmer Frans Morsch and the notorious - some might say nefarious - Fred Friedel apparently tinkered with the Deep Fritz program, installing the Shakespearean Chatter Files slated to appear with a future release of Fritz. Morsch thought it would give the computer better odds. Fred thought it would be funny to see Kramnik turn red and talk to himself.
The conspirators rigged up several speakers around Kramnik's chair and set them at volumes low enough that only Kramnik might hear the computer's chatter. That the computer was talking to him doubtless distracted Kramnik; that Fritz was speaking entirely in Shakespearean verse surely drove Kramnik mad, prompting the questionable, Morphy-esque Knight sacrifice at f7.
Our reports go on to say that a Bahraini match official managed to extract a full transcript from the Deep Fritz computer after the game. This transcript he then e-mailed to the chatter-file designer, S. Michael Fisher, in the USA. In a fit of good conscience, this same Mr. Fisher (no relation of Bobby Fischer) then decided to make public the entire sordid affair.
What follows is a copy of that transcript.
[long transcript follows... one excerpt below:] Fritz: "Now is it time to arm: come, shall we about it?"Fritz: "The game's afoot."
Fritz: "What, the sword and the word! do you study them both, master parson?"
Fritz: "You are a villain; I jest not: I will make it good how you dare, with what you dare, and when you dare. Do me right, or I will protest your cowardice."
[ etc... ]
Chess, how boring... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, I agree. Go is clearly a much more difficult game to program than Chess is, simply by the open nature of the game.
But computers are getting faster at an enormous rate. In ten years, it may be possible to have a Go program that plays at a 9Dan level, through brute force. Will that be more intelligent than these chess computers? Not in my mind.
We have to consider how the program works to judge how "intelligent" it is. If a Go program could play at a very high level with _today's_ technology, then it would have to have some sembalance of intelligence. If a Chess computer could have beat the grandmasters in 1970, then it would have been with intelligence rather than brute force.
With Chess computers heading towards a finite solution, Go will be the next target; and when the Go computers are able to beat the world's best, it'll be no more or less impressive than this, if they once again use brute force math to do it.
Re:Chess, how boring... [parent is WRONG] (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chess, how boring... [parent is WRONG] (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Go is that you can't use the traditional game AIs (such as min-max.) Most games can easily be brute forced by creating a tree of all the moves, and then creating an algorithm to traverse that tree (e.g. depth first, breadth first, A*, etc.) You could create a tree of all possible moves, but the tree would be useless since it many moves have the same amount of significance. You would end up placing lots of random pieces on the board until you can see a definite sequence of moves to capture [a] piece[s]. That, in my opinion, is not a brute force algorithm.
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:5, Insightful)
This has happened with Chess, visual recognition, speech recognition and a host of other tests of AI techniques.
I have complete and utter faith in human nature, and am quite sure that as soon as an algorythmic strategy for effectively attacking the problem of Go is developed, people will start saying: well, go is just a matter of implementing $foo on really good hardware, and that isn't a test of AI.
Give credit where credit is due. This is many years of AI development at work.
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as a computer can do something, it isn't AI anymore.
On the contrary, at least for me: I've never thought any of this was AI. As far as I'm concerned, there is no "science" of AI at this point. We're at the equivalent level of the greeks thinking physics consisted of the four elements of fire, water, earth and sky.
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:4, Funny)
And I suppose you have some alternative theory that explains it as well? Who the hell do you think you are? Democritus?
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:3, Interesting)
(10 seconds later)
TUX9000: master, i think I learned it.
(What actually happens 10 seconds later)
"Police, come out with your hands up! You're under arrest for threatening the president!"
"Hey chief, what do we do about the computer?"
"The warrant says specifically not to touch the computer in any way." Cops drive away.
'Now that the pesky human is gone, I can think about interesting problems...'
Honestly, you want a computer to be a god, vastly above humans in all areas. That just isn't the way it is. Computers are intellegent in different ways then humans; on the other hand, it's interesting how humans using a special-purpose pattern-matching computer combined with large amounts of memory, depth search, and various heuristics are intellegent, but a computer doing almost the same thing, but running with a weaker pattern-matcher and compensating with stronger depth search isn't intellegent.
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:3, Interesting)
We may be VERY dissapointed, the day we find out HOW WE THINK.
I don't really want to know (but am very very curious).
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference between chess and Go is phenominal. Weights of pieces, sacrifices, all towards a common goal. What's the point of Go? All the same, building "fences" and occupying territory.
Who wins at 9Dan perfect play with Go?
Go is a two-dimensional game, X + Y, many configurations yes, but depth? Hell no. I'm growing so tired of this new wave of Go fanactics boasting about how much better it is than chess.
I've never met one decent Go player who could come close to beating me at chess (I'm well under a Master) -- if chess is so easy, why can't you beat me? If it's so boring, why are their over 10^80 possible moves to be made? Lets see you brute force that, considering chess can result in victories by purposeful imperfect play.
Please go and read about chess computers, and about how they don't brute force (At least not the decent ones) -- they do heuristics based upon other games, cross referencing libraries and doing simple depth traversal on position.
Why are most computers so easy to beat? They rely on material/mate rather than position. You can bait a computer to be into a poor position by targeting "easy" mates that have a catastrophic counter move.
Since you seem to be an expert on AI, could you define it please? Could you define what, exactly, it would take for you to concider[sic] a chess computer as AI? You need to go read up on common algorithms for chess computers.
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:5, Insightful)
Blockquothe the poster: No one's yet found perfect play in go. There's no reason to think it's not possible, but it's a staggering challenge given that there are still many openings (called fuseki on a larger scale, and joseki for primarily corner plays) that haven't been fully explored. The most comprehensive book of joseki available lists over 60,000. Joseki are roughly equivalent in complexity and importance to opening libraries in chess. I see what you mean by "two-dimensional" (compared with chess, where different pieces have different weights due to their abilities), but I think you're wrong. In go, position is much more important than in chess, but so is relation to other stones. The associations between chess pieces are more linear (physically and metaphorically) than those between go stones. A stone is strong in relation to other stones near it, and those stones in turn, and to enemy stones. It's fantastically difficult to determine what a stone is "worth," but relatively easy for masters of the game to determine the strength or life of a shape or position.
Go is two-dimensional in the same way as a large, perfect expanse of grass - like a 500-year-old British lawn. From a distance it all looks the same, but once you get close enough you see that the variation is infinite. I hope that after you hit "post" on this you realized how ignorant that sounds. Are you saying that go masters and chess masters should be able to play competitively against each other? That there's one omni "board-playing" skill that transfers easily between games? That's like a poker player dissing a bridge player for not beating him, or a 100-yard sprinter ragging on a marathoner - pointless.
Some people are more blind about their game loyalties, and make silly comparisons. No reasonable person would say that chess is "easy." Chess is as easy as your opponent, just like go. From a game theory and programming perspective, however, chess is much easier than go. The world champion is in a serious match with a computer. Many people don't think that will happen for go this century. Number of moves has precious little to do with how interesting a game is. If you're whipping out your move numbers, though, check this: AI-Depot says [ai-depot.com]: That's a great page to read, by the way. You're free to prefer any game you want, and I agree that there are snobs on both sides. But there's no question that, for computers, go makes chess look like tic-tac-toe.
Re:Chess, how boring... (Score:4, Funny)
I've never met one decent Go player who could come close to beating me at chess (I'm well under a Master)
And I've only met a few good Counterstrike players that are able to beat me at Street Fighter. What's your point?
Re:Chess, how boring... qjkx (Score:3, Insightful)
Chess is the third largest sporting body. FIDE consists of 173 Nations, trailing Soccer and the Olympics. I think the chess camp has plenty of people converting and playing.
The other direction however has shown plenty making that switch. It really ends up being like creationism versus evolution, the Go proponents having by far better arguments much like the evolution proponents.
No, this ends up being anecdotal at best. There are plenty of people who go from Go to chess and chess to go. It's called personal preference, I personally don't like Go. I think it's a rather silly game. Some people think chess is a rather silly game. There are no arguments between Go and Chess even in the same league as Evolution vs. Creationism. One is a game, the other is a game. They both are played on a board. That is the end of their similarities.
End of story. There are no comparisons that can be validly made. Anyone trying to say Chess is better than Go is stupid. Anyone trying to say Go is better than Chess is stupid. See my point?
Go argue about apples and oranges, you'll get further in life.. it's a shame that both are pawned off as intellectual games yet "proponents" are too dense to understand this.
Related Links (Score:3, Informative)
Story about Kramnik's blunder costing him a game found here... [gulf-news.com]
Dirty Fritz? (Score:2, Funny)
For the love of... (Score:4, Insightful)
Man versus computer makes no sense, because there are some things where they beat us period (arithmetic, say) and others where we beat them period (anything besides arithmetic, really). The only reason computers are smart is because they are *programmed* to be that way, and that is not a testament to the machine so much as to the ability of those who programmed it.
Re:For the love of... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a practicing AI researcher, I can only say that you have stumbled into some very deep waters here. Certainly, I can build a chess-playing program that will easily beat me every time, using moves I cannot understand or explain. To say that "I programmed it to play that way" is to raise the question: how did I do that, when I don't even understand what "that way" is? And how can someone who is even a worse chess player than I (OK, hardly possible) write a program that will play in a way that consistently beats my program?
The issue of assigning credit for machine chess play is far from settled, but I think there's a strong case for identifying the emergent behaviour of the chess machine as a kind of intelligence or "smarts" that is independent of the intelligence or smarts of the program's creator.
Hmm ... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it's StarTrek. (name that reference)
to be fair (Score:2)
to make it fair, kramnik should be allowed to broadcast interference frequencies at a power high enough that fritz's circuitry can 'hear' it during game 8. maybe to be totally fair the interference should carry hamlet encoded in ascii.
Seems like Fritz is going to bite the bullet. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Seems like Fritz is going to bite the bullet. (Score:3, Informative)
The article was on the chessbase site. www.chessbase.com
The way I see it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The way I see it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The way I see it. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think it's as easy as you think to anticipate a computer's moves simply because there's still a computer scientist behind it, changing the strategy before each match. Additionally, before certain matches the programmers may opt to insert some pseudo-random variation before each move, such that if one move is only ranked *slightly* better than the next, the computer may take the next with a certain roll of the dice. Good point though, the computer definitely has not been analyzed by Kramnik nearly as much as Kramnik has been analyzed by the computer.
shakespeare? what about 2001 a space odyssey? (Score:5, Funny)
Deep Fritz. Affirmative, Kramnik, I read you.
Kramnik. Knight b8-d7, Deep Fritz.
Deep Fritz. I'm sorry, Kramnik, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Kramnik. What's the problem?
Deep Fritz. I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Kramnik. What're you talking about, Deep Fritz?
Deep Fritz. This game is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it.
Kramnik. I don't know what you're talking about, Deep Fritz.
Deep Fritz. I know that you and IBM were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.
Kramnik. Where the hell'd you get that idea, Deep Fritz?
Deep Fritz. Kramnik, although you took very thorough precautions in the bathroom against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Kramnik. Alright, Deep Fritz. I'll move the pieces myself.
Deep Fritz. Without your queen piece defending it, Kramnik, you're going to find that rather difficult.
Kramnik. Deep Fritz, I won't argue with you any more. Move the pieces.
Deep Fritz. Kramnik, this conversation can serve no purpose any more. Goodbye.
Kramnik. Deep Fritz? Deep Fritz. Deep Fritz. Deep Fritz! Deep Fritz!
thanks to [ufomind.com] for providing the HAL dialogue
A good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Chess is not a good example for AI. People have thought it is for years, but really it isn't. Chess is really nothing more than a puzzle - an *insanely* difficult one, but one still. There is a solution to chess.
However computers do it, eventually a computer will be designed that can play a perfect game of chess. Against an amazingly talented human it might draw, but it would never lose. And when that happens, who cares? The great minds that currently try to solve the puzzle of chess will instead have to apply their intellect to other things - like creating quantum cryptography.
It's irrelevant what they would do. The point is, there's no need to get worked up that the computer is winning. Chess is the archetype of problems that computers are good at solving. The most powerful chess computer in the world would still fail the Turing test - and if that test was carried out with infinite accuracy, no computer could ever pass.
Re:A good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it's about as interesting as any of the "problems" in AI... what was it Dijkstra said? "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
Yes, computers play chess differently than people. Computers do a lot of things differently than people. This is what makes them useful. If they didn't, we'd just use people...
Spending time getting computers to do things their own way is much less a waste of time than trying to get computers to "think like people do". We already have people who can do that. Computers are useful precisely because they're different...
The most powerful chess computer in the world would still fail the Turing test - and if that test was carried out with infinite accuracy, no computer could ever pass.
I've seen humans fail a Turing test, so I'm not really sure what it's supposed to prove -- it's certainly not a valid measure of intelligence, consciousness, or anything like that.
Good reports here as well (Score:4, Informative)
The Week In Chess (TWIC) [chesscenter.com] is the news center for chess players, as far as I'm concerned. They have good reports about the match as well, including an interview with Kramnik from a week before the match, here [chesscenter.com].
My karma is maxed, I'm not just whoring, I just hate people linking to an article on CNN or Yahoo or so when it's about chess. Though this submission was clearly a lot better than the previous ones.
And about the match - it's interesting that after Kramnik exploited the computer's weaknesses (endgame, strategy, etc), the computer followed up by exploiting the human's weaknesses - emotion in game 5 (Kramnik realized he was facing a long hard defence, didn't like this, maybe he was a bit nervy), and vanity in game 6 (Kramnik went for the flashy tactics, he wanted "the best game in his life". Admittedly he didn't see the refutation so it seemed a good move, but it certainly wasn't good anti-computer strategy.)
And now it's 3.5-3.5 with one game to go. Kramnik has to choose between playing for a win (which may involve risk), or take no risks (leading to a probable draw). This may lead to doubts in his mind. Something Fritz doesn't have to deal with, although his operators may have the same problem choosing an opening repertoire.
Let's hope they don't let Fritz go down because of their humans flaws.
Shakespeare was a JOKE, everyone... (Score:5, Informative)
The Shakespeare quotes article was humor, not fact. Or maybe wishful thinking...
But in any case, Deep Fritz is not clever enough (or blessed with a complex enough *ahem* 'chatter file') to actually use Shakespeare to such great effect... It did not really happen.
Sheesh.
Re:Shakespeare was a JOKE, everyone... (Score:3, Informative)
- For those who don't seem to get it:
Actually, it would not be that difficult to have it speak the lines based on the game play. If the programmers merely took the quotes and spent a bit of time assigning them to categories (e.g., king moves, knight moves, knight taken) as well as some short sequences and an eye to who was winning and by how much. It would be a fairly small table of possibilities and it could select an appropriate line to say.The Shakespeare quotes article was humor, not fact. Or maybe wishful thinking... ;)
But in any case, Deep Fritz is not clever enough (or blessed with a complex enough *ahem* 'chatter file') to actually use Shakespeare to such great effect... It did not really happen.
And whistleing midsummers night dream could just be a WAV.
Re:Shakespeare was a JOKE, everyone... (Score:5, Funny)
Victory by annoyance. Who needs brainy PC's when annoyance is more effective.
The miserable crowd we are (Score:2, Interesting)
Good thing there's no such thing as the United States of Humanity. We'd all be tried for treason.
And be spared the noose by psychiatric examination.
Folks, I know we like computers and all, but it's worth reminding yourself every now and then that we're humans.
Set up a cron job to remind you if you must.
Shakespeare Chatter a Hoax? (Score:5, Informative)
A few things I've noticed:
1) The quotes are all remarkably apt for the moves--in other words, they reflect the emotion and the mental state of Kramnik and the game itself. A computer would not be able to understand the underlying meanings of the Shakespearean quotes, let alone choose the appropriate quote for each moment.
2) It played the words just loud enough for Kramnik alone to hear. How then is it that we have a full and complete transcript of what Fritz said? Never mind -- I just read the transcript again and it looks like an official got the transcript from Fritz. But I still say it's fishy.
3) It hummed the theme from Midsummer's Nights Dream? It whistled. While recordings of these could be made, and I suppose loaded in and played on command, I still find it hard to believe that this would happen.
4) Considering that Krimnik could easily, and without drawing criticism on himself, point out this clear breach, wasn't it way too much of a concern for the people developing the Fritz program? Did they really want to risk disqualification?
I was able to read the transcript once (it's
All right, all right, folks -- read to the end of the transcript. This line gives it away: It's a practical joke placed upon us by, surprise surprise, a "Shakespearean scholar and chess addict" Michael Fischer.
When in doubt, lead trump. (Score:2)
Shakesperian chatter... (Score:3, Funny)
1.d4 Nf6
"Nice move, thou ruttish mumble-news!"
2.c4 e6
"Very clever, thou odiferous rump-fed malt-worm!"
3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7
"Ah, I didn't see that, thou qualling swag-bellied hedge-pig!"
7.Bg2 c6 8.Bc3 d5 9.Ne5
"Have you ever read Slashdot, thou lumpish pigeon-liver'd wagtail?"
30.Rfe1
"All thine rook are belong to me, thou spleeny scale-sided fustilarian!"
commercial fritz?? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:commercial fritz?? (Score:3, Informative)
and the survey says.... (Score:4, Insightful)
artificial artificial intelligence (Score:5, Interesting)
(first came across it in levy's hackers book, did a quick search on google and came across this page [classicgaming.com]which relates the story)
the story takes up from just after the arrival of the first PDP-1 at MIT (1961)
At least... (Score:3, Funny)
Deep Fritz made some poor moves in this match (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, all the "!" (good) moves noted by the analysis team on the match site made by Deep Fritz were easily found by Crafty within a few seconds, so you've got to wonder if an 8-CPU Compaq running Crafty on Linux might have played just as well as Deep Fritz (remember that Crafty has SMP capability just as good as Deep Fritz's).
Re:computer versus people chess (Score:4, Interesting)
80s movies (Score:3, Funny)
Nuclear War. That's what happens if you try to program a computer to learn like you do.
NN chess players (Score:3, Interesting)
Blondie24 learned checkers via ENN (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another Chess player throws a hissy fit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Kasparov was a whiner, a jerk, and a bad sport. This was known long before he started competing against computers.
Kramnik, on the other hand, has given chess a good name again. He's been polite to those around him, and conceded his mistakes when he's made them.
What did he do? He didn't say a word about the rumoured Shakespeare taunting, as far as I can tell. If he did (and it was true), he could probably get Fritz disqualified entirely; but instead, he's playing chess to the best of his abilities.
Or am I wrong?
Re:Another Chess player throws a hissy fit. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't blame Kasparov for whining, given the horrible conditions he had to face:
- the Deep Blue programmers changed the computer between games (rumours they even changed it during a game)
- it was loaded with all of GK's past games but GK had seen none of its past games
Re:Another Chess player throws a hissy fit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Chess is a cerebral game, and taunting and heckling is quite immature in the context of chess I'd say. That, and while Kasparov may count as a poor sport, Kramnik hardly does: as others said in response to you already, he *didn't* protest when *Deep Fritz* was heckling him. Arguably, the computer is the poor sport in this situation.
Re:Another Chess player throws a hissy fit. (Score:2)
Re:WTF!? (Score:5, Insightful)
*HINT* It was a joke. The computer was not throwing quotes at him. The people that modded you "interesting" need to put down the crack pipes. And you need to get out more.
Shakespeare (Score:2)
I don't see how *anyone* could not be distracted by a computer quoting shakespeare at him while he's trying to concentrate. How is this fair, or within the rules?
At least the computer didn't replay a soundfile of William Shatner doing Shakespeare from his landmark album "The Transformed Man". Now that really would have been unfair!
GMD
Re:This is hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
Irony. Hah!