Wednesday Open Thread: Chess Edition
by PubliusToday, in 1996, the computer Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in a chess match. It was the first time a computer had beaten Kasparov.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
20 Comments
I take it that Kasparov did not participate in the development of the computer Deep Blue! It also probably means that many heads are better than one head! Another reason why "Republics" are better than "Dictatorships," Marxist or otherwise!
Here's a great read from the master himself, Garry Kasparov:
The Chess Master and the Computer – The New York Review of Books
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23592?email
If I remember correctly, he whined about the match being unfair because the computer was programmed to beat him.
Well……duh!
Yeah, but nowadays Kasparov is breaking Putin's balls, so I'd say he is a winner.
Anyone seen Al Gore lately?
the last i heareded,he was adding a coal burning heater for his new double olympic size pool. rumor has it the pool will be filled with jello and blow up dolls…has something to do with the environment and all the fishies in the deep blue sea.
"The match ended when Kasparov described himself as having "no strength left to fight", made an uncharacteristic error in the deciding game leaving Deep Blue the winner of the six game match: 3.5 to 2.5".
The russian fumbled and deep blue smoked him like a cheap cigar.
Actually Kasparov had beaten the machine in the previous year (4-2), so they did some reprogramming and IBM offered $1.1 million dollars for a rematch.
The rest is history.
$1.1 million dollars= being embarassed by a computer?……………………………doesn't seem like a bad deal, except for that "let down the whole human race" thing.
Actually, Kasparov claimed that the move 37.Be4! in game 2 wasn't possible by chess programs in 1997. Even in 2010, most programs go for material, which is how these algorithms are programmed. Not for positioning, which is how humans develop superiority over machines. Kasparov expected 37.Qb6 which would have led to a simplified position and a drawn endgame. As such, he accused the IBM team of cheating by having a human input the 37th move. His accusation isn't entirely without merit, either, since IBM refused to show him the print outs from the machine which would have proven that the computer thought of and made the move, and then inexplicably dismantled Deep Blue after it "won" the 1997 match. It was all a PR stunt. They had no love for chess.
On top of everything, there were only 6 games played with 2 wins for the computer, 1 for Kasparov, and 3 draws. That might work for most people, but in the chess world it's nothing. You couldn't pick a world champion on 6 random games. That's not even a warmup. Kasparov and Karpov played 48 games with each other between September 1983 and February of 1984. Then there was Spassky and Fisher in 1972 which went 21 games in Reykjavik. 6 games? Meaningless.
Too bad Bobby Fischer had such a rotten character. He was the most dominant chess player.
(Kasparov had marathon matches with Karpov to determine the world champion)
On his way to his championship Fischer crushed the GMs in the Interzonal, then Mark Taimanov 6-0, Bent Larsen 6-0, Petrosian 6.5-2.5, and Spassky 12.5 – 7.5 For those who love chess, 'My 60 Memorable Games' by Bobby Fischer is a treasure.
About Al Gore: is he in DC? Is he cranking the furnace? Is he fighting the cold eating stakes and cake, adding more layers of fat to stay warm?
YES, THE CHESS GAME IS FEB 25, 2010. ALL ALONG THE NEGOTIATIONS WERE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, BUT NOW IT MUST HAVE AUDIO AND VIDEO. WHY, IN CASE THERES SOME GROUP TO BLAME, WILL IT BE RECORDED FOR FUTURE USE, ELECTIONS, THE UGLY BILL IS DEAD, LET IT RIP. WE TEA PARTIERS AND OTHERS WORKED ALL YEAR TO STOP IT. DONT REVIVE IT.
ANYWAY, HOW CAN ONE NEGOTIATE HONESTLY WITH THE TOP PREVERACATOR, YOU CANT !!
I thought it showed he was a poor loser. If he'd had any class he would have accepted defeat gracefully. Oh well. It's only chess.
I haven't kept up. Have computers continued to win?
Computers are generally considered better now. The world number 1 Kramnik lost a 2006 match against Deep Fritz.
From June 21 to June 27, 2005, Hydra played a six game match against Michael Adams, the top British player and ranked 7th in the world. Hydra defeated Adams by a score of 5.5 – 0.5; Adams lost each game except for game 2 which he drew.
In November 2005, Hydra played 4 games: it beat Rustam Kasimdzhanov, drew with Alexander Khalifman, beat Ruslan Ponomariov and finally drew with Rustam Kasimdzhanov.
Washington DC has been declared "too dangerous to plow."?…………huh?
It wasn't too dangerous to plough a leftist agenda through, but now it's too dangerous to plough snow from the streets? i love it.
But every computer can be beat by a sledgehammer.
where do I sign up to "take on the computer"?
Cool $1.1 million? I'm computer fodder!
Actually I think he's "gone Nero". He'll burndown his neighborhood while fiddling with his flute (er, piccollo) then raze the area and build a GIANT wood burning hot tub that seats like 300.
He's lunatic fear monger – it's steady work and the perques are ok.
If I could click the thumbs-up like 50 times to rate this post, I would.
That's what I call filling in the backstory on a sensationalized headline. THANKS !
No. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
Computers are programmed to think. So in the end it's really a match of hundreds versus one. Deep Blue had all the programs and engineers and if I am not mistaken something like twenty GMs that "taught" it. If I had twenty GMs giving me their undevided teaching for a few years I could probably do pretty good against any top ranked player.
cl
You must be logged in to post a comment.