Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

#21

Post by casion »

V-2 wrote: post #12
casion wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He felt that the engineers intervened DURING the games, and obviously did not feel that intervention between games was reasonable either. The former was disallowed, and the latter was taken advantage of more than Kasparov thought it would be. He wasn't being a sore loser and there was a reasonable amount of agreement among other chess professionals (engine authors and players) that his claims were true. Keep in mind…

We will never know for sure. If I was IBM, after the cheating accusations I'd probably refuse a rematch, too, even if I didn't cheat. Why? Because unlike before, it would generate bad publicity for me now (the reason for a rematch would keep on being mentioned), and God forbid if ubermotivated Kasparov managed to triumph this time, under tighter scrutiny. Now the public is convinced that I cheated before... The atmos…

My point about the rematch is that it made more reasonable to the chess community to believe Kasparov's claims.

From IBM's perspective, it made sense as you pointed out. From Kasparov's perspective, it also made sense for them to decline , but for a wholly different reason.

It really was just a sad situation where nobody could come out on top except for IBM. Even if they DID cheat, they were the only ones who were capable of proving that. IBM simply outsmarted Kasparov outside the game.

Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

#22

Post by ganzuul »

casion wrote: post #11
jpablo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He felt that the engineers intervened DURING the games, and obviously did not feel that intervention between games was reasonable either. The former was disallowed, and the latter was taken advantage of more than Kasparov thought it would be. He wasn't being a sore loser and there was a reasonable amount of agreement among other chess professionals (engine authors and players) that his claims were true. Keep in mind…

That would be an amazing parallel to the story of the Mechanical Turk.

Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

#23

Post by ganzuul »

johnaspden wrote: post #15
johnaspden wrote: post #13

Fun article, but does anyone else find the damned banner at the top of the page infuriatingly distracting? And is there a way to make it go away?

Ah, in firefox, right click -> inspect element, find 'position fixed', and untick it. Page behaves.... So is there any way to do this automatically whenever websites do this sort of thing?

Stylish/Userstyles might let you script at it easily, but there doesn't seem to be a dedicated app.

Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

#24

Post by jacquesm »

Arnor wrote: post #14
DMac87 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Kasparov also complained that he was never allowed to see any logs or previous games by Deep Blue ahead of the match. If he was playing another GM, there would have been hundreds of games available where he could get a feeling for the player's preferences. Preparing for such a high level match necessarily requires such preparations.

He should have made his participation conditional on being shown previous games. I'm pretty sure everybody outside of IBM would have considered that fair.

IBM reminds me of a kid at school that would play everybody that was playing chess up until the point where he'd win once against them. Then he'd run off and spout to everybody that he was now better than 'x'. The rematch offer was pretty lame after the cheating accusations, they should have addressed those first. No rematch given those conditions, no prior data -> no fair victory.

If IBM wanted to do this fairly they'd give Kasparov at least as much data on Deep Blue as they had on Kasparov.

Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

#25

Post by 3pt14159 »

j00lz wrote: post #20

Also worth noting that IBM stock price increased by $2Billion after defeating Kasparov. So they have had everything to gain by beating him at whatever cost.

Stock prices going up have nothing to do with the incentives of companies and everything to do with the availability of information.

It'd be like a gumball machine trying to make itself more valuable. Just sell more gumballs at a hirer price.

Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

#26

Post by Jun8 »

DMac87 wrote: post #6

It 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 fee…

It's been remarked that backgammon is man's struggle against change, chess is his struggle against another man, and Go is his struggle against himself. While there's some artistic license (a good backgammon player will crush a mediocre one in the long run) this comment does provide some interesting cultural.

And there's also a Shibumi quote I like: "Go is to Western chess what philosophy is to double-entry accounting." This book was the first time I heard about Go.

Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

#27

Post by dwd »

jpablo wrote: post #3
ganzuul wrote: post #2

I 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…

The reason Kasparov hinted at cheating was that he had the measure of Deep Blue. When it played the random move it did something that fell outside of what he had learned to except. Hence, either IBM cheated by making a move for the computer or it was showing human intuition. It was pure coincidence that the move was actually better than what it's algorithm would have chosen but Kasparov wasn't to know that.

It broke his composure and concentration and the match was lost.

Re: Why the Chess Computer Deep Blue Played Like a Human

#29

Post by j00lz »

3pt14159 wrote: post #25
j00lz wrote: post #20

Also worth noting that IBM stock price increased by $2Billion after defeating Kasparov. So they have had everything to gain by beating him at whatever cost.

Stock prices going up have nothing to do with the incentives of companies and everything to do with the availability of information. It'd be like a gumball machine trying to make itself more valuable. Just sell more gumballs at a hirer price.

The incentive of public companies is everything to do with stockprice, as it is the primary metric to rate the performance of a company? What does information availability have anything to do with the value of a company?
Post reply on HN