Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#2I thought he walked out on the match because he was upset that the computer DIDN'T behave like a human. Huh. Weird, these narratives.
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#3I thought he walked out on the match because he was upset that the computer DIDN'T behave like a human. Huh. Weird, these narratives.
He didn't walk out. He played all six games in the match and lost the match in the last game after he played a opening that was know as losing by everyone after a piece sacrifice (it was speculated that Kasparov was gambling that deep blue wouldn't make the sacrifice and then he will have the upper hand).
Deep blue played pretty much "like a machine" except for a few moves that where considered very human because they hold very long term advantages.
After the match Kasparov hinted that IBM must have cheated, of course now a days a machine running in a off the shell desktop machine will surely beat the current world champion in a match, so Kasparov was just being a sore loser at the time.
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#4I thought he walked out on the match because he was upset that the computer DIDN'T behave like a human. Huh. Weird, these narratives.
He didn't walk out. He played all six games in the match and lost the match in the last game after he played a opening that was know as losing by everyone after a piece sacrifice (it was speculated that Kasparov was gambling that deep blue wouldn't make the sacrifice and then he will have the upper hand). Deep blue played pretty much "like a machine" except for a few moves that where considered very human because the…
A playback of that final game:
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#5The interesting thing about the Monte Carlo approach is that it depends on the property that a randomly chosen move (or branch) can be representative of a similar set of moves. In a game like Go this is true because there are many sequences of moves that end up in exactly the same game state, and slight variations of board position have the same utility. But in chess, slight variations in every board position will have huge impact on the outcome of the came. Raw calculation is a necessary component of strong play and intuition is much less useful.
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#6It is fascinating to compare & contrast chess, Go, and backgammon, and how quite different approaches are needed to program in each. For chess, 'pure calculation' is most effective, while the author suggests MC is good for Go & others. In backgammon, TD-gammon used a rather naive neural net approach and trained itself, optimizing its own play over time! It is also interesting how computers' success in these areas feeds back into how humans play the game (at least in backgammon and chess opening strategy).
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#7Afaik, I thought the engineers running the machine were reprogramming during the game to handle changes in Kasparov's technique. Please someone with more knowledge chime in, but from my memory it was more like he was competing against computationally augmented human opponent. He wasn't beaten by a computer, he was beaten by a team of engineers using a computer.
some corroboration on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#8I've always been curious if what Kasparov calls, "human intuition" by Deep Blue was merely Deep Blue being able to search more plies than any computer could before it.
Also, not sure if it was fair for IBM engineers to change Deep Blue code during the actual match. Because now you are actually playing against both humans and machines. It would have been a huge blow for IBM if the machine they've spent to long working on couldn't beat Kasparov.
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#9I thought he walked out on the match because he was upset that the computer DIDN'T behave like a human. Huh. Weird, these narratives.
He didn't walk out. He played all six games in the match and lost the match in the last game after he played a opening that was know as losing by everyone after a piece sacrifice (it was speculated that Kasparov was gambling that deep blue wouldn't make the sacrifice and then he will have the upper hand). Deep blue played pretty much "like a machine" except for a few moves that where considered very human because the…
When I think of Deep Blue not playing like a computer, I think more so of it leaving itself open to a forced draw the one game when it had the upper hand.
Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human
#10Afaik, I thought the engineers running the machine were reprogramming during the game to handle changes in Kasparov's technique. Please someone with more knowledge chime in, but from my memory it was more like he was competing against computationally augmented human opponent. He wasn't beaten by a computer, he was beaten by a team of engineers using a computer. some corroboration on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_…
Not reprogramming during any game, but during the match (between games). You can argue about how much influence this has, in my mind though he was beaten by highly similar variants of a computer program (not quite a fixed concept, but not adjusted too much during the match).