Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Human Beats Computer In Calculating (Read 7365 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

After drawing the first game with black, Kramnik takes victory in the second game.

/me applauds

/me continues work on Deep Sjeng thereby further delaying any Vorbis work

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #1 –
forget this thread .

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #2 –
I always have some mixed feelings in this kind of human vs computer matches.
As long as humans can beat them there's still hope.
Kramnik vs Deep Fritz match

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #3 –
Any other good links with match coverage?

Quote
As long as humans can beat them there's still hope.

For man or the machine?
Actually, I think I'm more ashamed that computers still aren't able to defeat the best human chess players, than I would be for man.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #5 –
Thanks!
I planned to watch on Fics, but forgot again...

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #6 –
I don't get it. How could a computer beat the best human (Kasparov) and then lose a few years later (Kramnik)? Shouldn't have the gap between man and machine widened significantly since then?

Is this "Deep Fritz" as good as "Deep Blue" was?

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #7 –
"Shouldn't have the gap between man and machine widened significantly since then?"

When it comes down to it, it's not really a match between man and machine, but a chess player and a computer programmer/computer architect.  There's no "gap" really, because the two processes are so completely different, comparing a computer to a human is a somewhat ignorant way to go about doing things.

The architecture that the machine uses is not parallel neural network, like our brain, so we can't make a computer that plays chess like a person, but we can make slightly better algorithms for serial processing of the chess moves.

The whole computer chess game thing doesn't really matter, when you consider how limited computers are by their need for programming and their serial architecture.

The game will only really start when they make computers with a similar architecture to our brain and program them/let the computer program itself to use those resources efficiently.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #8 –
I think they should take the computing powers of these Deep machines, and have them go against the best military commanders that world has to offer in some form of war games. If the computer could repeatedly beat the human then, I would be a little frightened.

As for chess, it is quite odd that one computer won, and then another computer now lost. Of course, the players could be different, but in a game of chess I would think that the computer would always win (or atleast choose the most effective counteraction to anything the human thought of).

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #9 –
I like this simpler game  (and the software)

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #10 –
This match is an exeption, the human was chosen on purpose !
Almost ANY other computer in the world can beat almost ANY other human in the world at chess game (don't forget that most humans can't even play chess).

In my opinion, the chess game is no more than a process in which the best humans can compete with most computers. Other games lead to completely different results :
Computers are unbeatable at Othello
No computer can beat a world-class human at the game of Go or Bridge.

And we can even extend the competition outside games : no human can make 4 additions with 8 digit numbers faster than a computer, and no computer can tell what someone is going to do in a photo better than a human.

I don't see why the chess game would stand for the highest form of intelligence, for me, the equal force of (average) computers and (best) humans is just a fortuitus accident.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #11 –
Quote
I don't get it. How could a computer beat the best human (Kasparov) and then lose a few years later (Kramnik)? Shouldn't have the gap between man and machine widened significantly since then?

Is this "Deep Fritz" as good as "Deep Blue" was?

This article clarifies some reasons why the computer shouldn't necessarily win easily this time just because Deep Blue won last time.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/03/...hess/index.html
Sorry, I have nothing witty to say here.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #12 –
Quote
the first time since the invention of a chess program in 1958 that a machine had beaten a human


My Atari 800XL beat me in 1985

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #13 –
Quote
Is this "Deep Fritz" as good as "Deep Blue" was?

I found some interesting information here at Time.com.

A quote from the article:

"Dull or not, it's by no means clear that either program [Deef Fritz or Deep Junior]  could have beaten Deep Blue. Blue was a chess-playing juggernaut that approached the game with the strategy known to computer scientists as brute force. Employing a design that included 64 custom-made chess-playing computer chips — one for each square of the board — it could examine 200 million moves per sec. Fritz and Junior, by contrast, can ponder only 2 million to 4 million moves per sec. But calculating possibilities is only one aspect of playing chess. Judging which player would wind up with the better board position is also important, and here Fritz and Junior presumably have an edge over Blue."

It looks like, if the current state-of-the-art software (like Deep Fritz) were running with the computing power of Deep Blue, Kramnits would have a much harder task.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #14 –
from the same article

Quote
Although Junior is the current world computer chess champion, Fritz did not play for the title because its creators wanted to keep it under wraps until the Kramnik match.


i don't think this is a fair statement... deep junior beat deep shredder in that tournament, and shredder has been decisively better than fritz in the last so many matches i've seen.

aside from this, i don't really understand "computer" chess tournaments. all these programs run on normal (if multiprocessor based) computers. so.... what the hell's so special about this match? anyone can do this! and why is kramnik getting so much money? it's something he's been doing continuously for free for the last month! the only thing i can discern here is that for ~$1.6 million, the king of bahrain is going to find out whether the world champion can beat his desktop computer or not. and then he's going to sell it to media companies so that they can tell us.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #15 –
Quote
I like this simpler game  (and the software)

I've been playing a lot against the computer AI in this for the past couple of years. There are even computer bridge tournaments these days.

But more recently I've been playing against the computer in this game

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #16 –
Tangent: Wats ur battle.net nick might challenge you one day!
-=MusePack... Living Audio Compression=-

Honda - The Power of Dreams

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #17 –
Quote
from the same article

Quote
Although Junior is the current world computer chess champion, Fritz did not play for the title because its creators wanted to keep it under wraps until the Kramnik match.


i don't think this is a fair statement... deep junior beat deep shredder in that tournament, and shredder has been decisively better than fritz in the last so many matches i've seen.

Fritz *did* play in the last World Championship, and finished only fourth. I was there, so I damned well know 

They used the name Quest instead of Fritz because they were afraid of the commercial repercussions should Fritz not win the title (and given their result, it was a good idea).

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #18 –
huh...
Now there will be even more repercussions.. Trying to hide.. Not a good commerial move...

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #19 –
Quote
Dull or not, it's by no means clear that either program could have beaten Deep Blue.


Hm, according to this, Fritz beat an earlier version of Deep Blue in 1995, and IBM couldn't call the Kasparow - Deep Blue match "computerchess world champion vs. human world champion", but only "world's strongest chess program vs. world champion".

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #20 –
Quote
Fritz *did* play in the last World Championship, and finished only fourth. I was there, so I damned well know

In how far do such results reflect the strength of a computer program against humans? I reckon that there are special anti-computer strategies, and programs that do well against Fritz, Junior, etc. might be weaker against Kasparov, Kramnik, etc.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #21 –
Quote
In how far do such results reflect the strength of a computer program against humans? I reckon that there are special anti-computer strategies, and programs that do well against Fritz, Junior, etc. might be weaker against Kasparov, Kramnik, etc.

That's hard to tell, because there are only very few official games played between the computers and top human players, so it's impossible to make a conclusion.

Kasparov vs Deep Junior will be very interesting, because both have a totally different style from Kramnik/Fritz. Those games will likely be all out slaughterfests.

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #22 –
So how powerful is this computer?

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #23 –
Apparently, Fritz crashed in the 4th game, right now. Kramnik must be prepared very well 
It's running on Win2000 btw...

Human Beats Computer In Calculating

Reply #24 –
8 CPU Xeon PIII 900