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.
Kasparov isn't the best player anymore; World Champion Vladamir Krammnik holds that distinction.
The author later admits that no such implications - negative ones, at least - exist when he writes, "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."
I saw that too. When I lost in tournaments I could have made up lots of reasons, and there were certainly times I was extremely tired, but when you play to win you don't make excuses. Get the rest you need, study hard, and if you lose suck it up and look for a brighter day. There is always a reason you lost - it's the one you use that defines your character.
Indeed, damn shame too. I used to study all his games, read books on him and spassky, etc. I could tell he was a little nutty then - had no idea how nutty he really was until the last few years...
Personally, I would have liked to see the result of a couple of Rounds played between Deep Blue and Bobby Fischer...
A massively-powerful computer "thinking machine" pitted against an erratic, uniquely-brilliant chess strategist who is not only a savant Genius beyond the ken of mortal men, but who is (by all accounts) categorically insane.
Well said.
Kasparov was an endurance monster when he was younger (best displayed in his marathons with Karpov), and it could very well be that he has simply just lost his edge. I'm sure it must be frustrating, especially since many - not I - consider him the greatest grandmaster of all time. But if he can't take the heat, he should retire. Playing at a very high level into middle age is not very common for players of his calibre; Emmanuel Lasker was one glaring exception.
I have a solid ivory chess set (probably illegal to have it now) I won in a tournament back in the late 60s. I never could figure out how a dumb ole boy like me could beat all of those smart guys. {;o)
Indeed, damn shame too. I used to study all his games, read books on him and spassky, etc. I could tell he was a little nutty then - had no idea how nutty he really was until the last few years... 9 posted on 02/03/2003 7:35 PM PST by chance33_98 (Freedom is not Free)
I'm the most meager of incompetent Chess novices ("fool" would be a better term) but I don't think that you can blame Chess for turning Fischer's brains into a bowl of oatmeal.
Bobby Fischer was born as Bobby Fischer. Chess is just the "outlet" in which this deranged autistic-savant founds his expression.
Fischer's "Chess IQ" is not only off the charts... there are no charts. By all accounts, his "Chess-IQ" is deep into the multiple hundreds at least -- if not the bloody thousands. His "Reality IQ" is, unfortunately, barely a few degrees above absolute zero.
No, I don't begin to do him justice. God has a sense of Humor, I guess... the man is practically an Alien.
He's a heck of a lot smarter than that, even.
And a heck of a lot weirder, too. (Though the funky Jew-hating thing is true, unfortunately)
On both counts.
If it's that old, it's legal for you to own and sell domestically, generally speaking - the only thing you can't do is export it under the Endangered Species Act. If you could show that it was more than a hundred years old, you'd also be able to export it. FYI ;)
Oh, please.
I don't think humanity is any worse off just because the world's greatest distance runners would finish the Daytona 500 about 180 laps behind Sterlin Marlin or Dale Jarrett.
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.