What I've always found so interesting about this story is how singular a moment this was, where humans and machines could play a meaningful game of chess. For millennia before, a chess-playing machine was nonsense. Today, chess computers so completely outclass human players that mobile phones can win high-level tournaments. There was a period of no more than five or ten years where the best computer could play the best human, and have the result be in doubt, and it happened right around the turn of the millennium.
How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
11–17 of 17 posts
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#12why wrong?
1.)correlation does NOT imply causation
2.)psychology of FEAR mode can strike ANY chess player
3.)the computer at that time will lose because it does NOT
understand the art of deception and 'feints.'
4.)IBM Deep Blue is moving to poker, which is a MUCH better test.
5.)observations are NOT double blind.
6.)highly useful IMHO (at least for me as a child) is to IMAGINE the opponent is 'genius' and then 'stupid.' Simple thought experiment. Even the dog with low IQ is able to predict the owner's moves.
7.)It's obvious that even basic 'stupidity' is mentioned on HN, the verge and even the Nate Silver book. Why?
8.)time or tempo is important and more so with high level champions. So, 'losing tempo' by 'computer error' or 'harmless rook move' is BAD.
9.)Obviously, it is far worse for a HUMAN PLAYER, since it means that the opponent has lost its train of thought. For Deep Blue it means BAD CODING.
note: based on similarities to my experience as child chess champion.
PS. the definitie book still NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN, including some open sourcing of code.
PPS. generally the only suggestion I can make to improving chess ability is YOGA or relaxation techniques. Why?
the key problem IMHO is stress cause by 'context switching' between frames depending upon 'models.' i.e. model of attack or 'strategic attack' or 'feint attack', etc.
the key question is: the computer does NOT switch between modes but has one global mode, IMHO. as a comparison to human player.
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#13why wrong? 1.)correlation does NOT imply causation 2.)psychology of FEAR mode can strike ANY chess player 3.)the computer at that time will lose because it does NOT understand the art of deception and 'feints.' 4.)IBM Deep Blue is moving to poker, which is a MUCH better test. 5.)observations are NOT double blind. 6.)highly useful IMHO (at least for me as a child) is to IMAGINE the opponent is 'genius' and then 'stupi…
addendum
martial arts >> kung fu >> styles >> drunken style or erratic movements.
information theory >> low Signal to Noise >> SNR or
lesson learn - don't make your goal and intention too obvious to the
enemy.
philosophy >> Art of War Strategy by Sun-Tze >> insert quote here
math >> sequential game >> algorithms >> meta and hyper heuristics
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#14For a different spin on films about chess-playing computers, check out Computer Chess, a mumblecore mockumentary about a 1980s computer chess tournament:
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#15What I've always found so interesting about this story is how singular a moment this was, where humans and machines could play a meaningful game of chess. For millennia before, a chess-playing machine was nonsense. Today, chess computers so completely outclass human players that mobile phones can win high-level tournaments. There was a period of no more than five or ten years where the best computer could play the be…
It was really fun at the time. Computer chess enthusiasts were discussing the match on rec.games.chess and analyzing real-time on ICC. PC chess programs could not check as deep as Deep Blue so there was lots of speculation on how good the AI actually was. CrazyBird's (Feng-hsiung Hsu) book is a recommended read.
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#16Can it really be called a "computer error" for a non-deterministic program?
It beat Garry Kasparov in multiple matches, it's probably better than most chess programs at the time.
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#17"After the loss Kasparov questioned whether Deep Blue's team had cheated in order to beat him, but in a fascinating new short documentary by FiveThirtyEight and ESPN, it's shown that the momentous victory — and the notorious 44th move that led to it — was actually the result of a computer error."
But the video actually says the error occurred in the first game, which Kasparov won, rather than in the second, which he lost and after which he suggested he had been cheated.