Posted on 02/03/2003 7:11:40 PM PST by Sawdring
THE idea that chess-playing skill is a proxy for machine intelligence is not new. It goes back as far as 1770, when Wolfgang von Kempelen, a Hungarian inventor, unveiled a wooden, clockwork-powered mannekin at the court of Maria Theresa, Empress of Austria-Hungary. This machine, known as the Turk because of its exotic costume, could play chess, moving the pieces with a mechanical arm and defeating even the best human players. It was, of course, a trick—a hidden human operator controlled the automaton's movements—but some observers equated its chess prowess with intelligence.
This notion was revived in the 1950s, when the building of a genuine chess-playing machine was seen by artificial-intelligence researchers as a stepping-stone towards a general theory of machine intelligence. Claude Shannon, a computer scientist, explained why, in an article published in 1950. “The problem is sharply defined. It is neither so simple as to be trivial or too difficult for satisfactory solution. And such a machine could be pitted against a human opponent, giving a clear measure of the machine's ability in this kind of reasoning.”
You would have thought that such speculation would have ended in 1997 with the defeat of Garry Kasparov, the world's top-ranked chess player, by Deep Blue, a computer built by researchers at IBM. Mr Kasparov made much of the notion that he was defending humanity's honour; Newsweek called the contest “the brain's last stand”. In fact, it was no such thing. Far from being a step towards machine intelligence, as theorists had hoped in the 1950s, building a world-class chess computer has proved to be surprisingly easy, thanks to the plummeting price and soaring power of computer chips. Rather than emulating the complex thought-processes of human players, computers simply resort to mindless number-crunching to decide what move to make. Throw enough microchips at the problem—Deep Blue contained hundreds of specialist chess-analysis chips—and it does indeed become trivial. Quantity, as Mr Kasparov noted after his defeat, had become quality. He demanded a rematch, but IBM said no.
The World Chess Federation hosts the match between Garry Kasparov and Deep Junior.
Now Mr Kasparov has, in a sense, belatedly got what he asked for. Still the world's top-ranked player, he is playing a six-game match in New York against today's top computer program, Deep Junior. Inevitably, there has been renewed speculation about the implications for mankind if the best human player loses again to a computer. This is silly, for two reasons.
First, Deep Blue, Deep Junior and their sort are human creations. The real victors, if Mr Kasparov loses again, will not be machines, but the humans who designed and built them. Since machines are—so far, at least—unable to design and build improved versions of themselves, there is no need to worry about the world being taken over by chess-mad robots.
The second, more important reason is that we now know that chess-playing skill does not, in fact, equal intelligence. Nobody minds that cars can outrun the fastest athlete, or that cranes can lift heavier weights than the strongest man. Playing chess, it turns out, falls into the same category, despite its outward complexity: it is possible to get a dumb machine to do it better than any human. The equation of chess-playing with intelligence is centuries old, but it is time to lay it to rest.
Continuing my earlier point, this is why I would love to see a match-up between Bobby Fischer and Deep Blue.
According to IBM's own development notes, Deep Blue was designed to beat Kasparov in the 1997 match-up. IBM brought in dozens of defeated Grand Masters to meet with the Programming Team and asked them, "How does Kasparov play?" The object was not to figure out why these Grand Masters beat Kasparov (most of them hadn't), but why did they lose? And thereby, to specifically design a computer program which anticipated Kasparov's strengths, and compensated in advance.
This wouldn't work against Fischer. We are talking about an idiot savant who by the age of thirteen would sacrifice his QUEEN, to no apparent Logical Advantage whatsoever, against the strongest American players just to prove a point -- "You foolish Mortals are mere putty in my hands".
I'm far too stupid to know, and Bobby Fischer is a bit too kooky to tell us.
I once played against Boris Spassky -- aside from the Russian accent, he seemed like a very normal human being.
I don't know any of Fischer's play-mates personally, of course -- especially since the Chess involved is waaaaaay over my head.
But I do enjoy reading the Interviews you can find on the Net (if you look hard enough).
"Fischer? He's indescribably brilliant. However, he's also a slavering mad-man. Pity, that."
:-)
He lost to Krammnik in the World Title Match. Deal with it.
While it is true that Kramnik holds a title of World Champion, having defeated Garry in a title match, it is not the FIDE title (which is held by Ruslan Ponomariov of the Ukraine).
So because it's not FIDE, your assertion is that somehow it's not legitimate? Kasparov was the best player in the world, was beaten by Krammnik, and will have to beat Krammnik to regain that distinction.
Furthermore, Garry has a plus score against Kramnik in the overall match of all games played.
Krammnik was in his late teens when he lost many of those matches, and Krasparov was in his prime. Times have changed.
In fact, he recently defeated Kramnik in a match (the Botvinnik Memorial).
Until he does it with the World Championship on the line, it doesn't mean squat. Kasparov is tired; his day is done.
Yep, but he wasn't near the top of his game when he retired. Lasker, on the other hand, was winning tournaments in his late 50's against the likes of the great Capablanca and a young Alekhine.
Russians are normal Human Beings, they're just better Mathematicians than the rest of us. (grin)
If you have any doubt on the matter, check the "space race" exhibition at the Smithsonian Aeronautics museum in Washington DC. One of the funniest examples of "culture clash" I ever saw...
It just goes to show... when Russian Dictators have been willing to sacrifice the Human Rights and the Life-Blood of 100 million of their own people (which sadly, is a sacrifice that Russian Dictators are usually willing to make)... they have admittedly accomplished Wonders. Even when they had to use practically 19th Century technology to do it.
When you don't give a tinker's damn about Human Life and Human Rights, a Gun to the Head can deliver the nigh-impossible (and that's my opinion of the Soviet space program).
I'm assuming it's either "One generation against another", or the Proven Workhorse versus miniaturization and improved capabilities.
Big Brother plays against Little Brother.
Centralized Mini-Computer, against Turbo-Charged Work-Station.
That's just my guess. I have enjoyed reading the Deep Blue development notes against Kasparov, but this is not my area of expertise (I'm a financier, not a programmer).
If you want a more precise answer -- ask IBM. I'm not the guy to answer your question intelligently, sad to say.
My calvinist buddy "CCWoody" is a computer engineer, he knows this subject better than do I. At least he can probably comment more intelligently than can I. I'll flag him in.
If you're referring to some connection to the Anderssen-Dufresne game (Berlin, 1852), you're over my head.
If not, then you're way over my head.
I would have liked to learn Chess from a master, but I have not. At my very best I have played against a NorthWestern US regional champion when I was 19, somewhere on a lonely fishing boat as we together plied the Chatham Straits of Alaska.
I barely won two out of thirteen if that tells you anything (I might perhaps have forced a Stalemate upon him in another round, exact memory fails me).
As I said to AC, I am not a child of Wei Chi, but of Avalon Hill. I know that I have not learned Tactics as well as I could. Not Strategy, but "Grand Strategy" --i.e., Economics, which is like breathing Air to me.
So, I can only hope that my military Peers have likewise learned Logistics, if the old Maxim holds true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.