< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
|Nov-16-03|| ||Bears092: Crummy of them? Be realistic here. A large majority of viewers of that channel don't care about chess at all. I feel lucky to even get anything on TV. |
|Nov-16-03|| ||Nova1990: Bears092, you're not going to change my mind so let's drop this and talk about the game. Garry is looking very good right now. |
|Nov-16-03|| ||mack: Bd6? Yeah, NICE TRY... |
|Nov-16-03|| ||Nova1990: <Ashley> Coverage of the game if it lasts past 2:30 goes from ESPN 2 to ESPNews. |
|Nov-16-03|| ||Nova1990: Lol, the computer blinked and moved B back to e7. |
|Nov-16-03|| ||lostemperor: If Kasparov move his rook back to a1 he will have a draw! lol. |
|Nov-16-03|| ||Alchemist: Speaking of Nemeth it seems that Kasparov has been taking some lessons from some of his games, it's game 3, the pawns are locked, garry has a beautiful arrangement of the minor peices and a powerful passer, and it seems fritz has lost it's legs, shifting it's king back and forth for lack of better play. Really quite a triumph for the human race here, albeit the computer may yet hold some unseen drawing resource, but I doubt it. Gary is looking very good here. |
|Nov-16-03|| ||Alchemist: Kasparov Wins! Fritz resigns on move 44! |
|Nov-17-03|| ||lostemperor: <Finally Kasparov> showed a computer can also be beaten even in a not too complicated way, 6 years late, what he also should have done vs Deep Blue '97. The chessworld became a Deep Mess since the IBM vs Kasparov farce.|
<So chess still needs an Emergencyplan>. To solve the worldchampionship and the socalled domination of the machines. I think it we've reached the point of no return (in 1997 already). We must now play the computers and restore human superiority (since we've already lost in the eyes of the public and sponsors).
<1.>The computer champion must participate in human candidatematches and not get the privilege of immediately playing the human champion (logical not).
<2.> Of course Kasparov must join the candidates tournament like Ponomariov (This will solve their dispute) and Leko and Kramnik too (this solve the unification). Although this time I want to make an exception for Kramnik.
<3.> There will be two parallel groups grandmasters who do not want to play the computer and a likely more popular group of GMs who like to play a computer (EG. players like myself will have more chance against a computer (likely 10%) than against a top GM (perhaps 1%).
<4.> If the computer come out on top it may play Kramnik for the worldtitle.
<Simple right.> Let's not quarrel like politicians or political leaders but just do it.
For the rest anything is allowed, camera's, models, TV, X3Dglasses, audience and Dr. Zukhar, para psycologist, too. It should be attractive, cool and exciting for sportchannels to broadcast several moves of a recent game, made easily understandable for the big audience, with the help of nice computeranimation. Chess must be, and is, HOT for a new public.
<A human WChampion> will be a mix of strongest player and one who knows to beat the computer (like a new breed). Let the computer proof it can come on top in fair matches of man and machines although I think it will take several years still and even not always.
<For the skeptics,> I see this plan as perhaps the only way for topchess, what is stalemated now the last few years, to survive. And man and computer (a fabulous opponent and compagnion) will live peacefully side by side.
|Nov-17-03|| ||crippledpawn: Please remember, boys and girls Fritz dose not get tired, need a drink of water, bathroom breaks or all the other human things. Such as day dreaming about your dream lover. |
|Nov-17-03|| ||jaime gallegos: By the way, the Qa4 ! movement was made for Reshevsky against Keres according to chessbase.com, this movement was not recognized for the computer ? Besides, Keres developed his K-side pawns counterattacking and won that game... if Kasparov played positional anticomputer chess he did it well, perhaps he has found the right way to fight against powerful computers ( I read X3D Fritz thinks at 18 ply !!! ) so in this game with too many figures, even for this computer is extremely hard to configurate a plan ( with 10 or more movements ahead ). Would the X3DFritz team be able to avoid new positions like this ? |
|Nov-17-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Jaime, probably they'll avoid the closed positions in the 4th game, or at least make it so that the closed position will objectively favor them slightly instead of Kasparov (as in that Ruy Lopez game where Kasparov blundered in time control.) |
|Nov-17-03|| ||Outcast Searcher: When the machine played B-d6, I was thinking it was being clever and going to transfer the bishop to b8 to aim at the K-side long term. (I didn't realize at the time how badly it misunderstood the position.) Not that things would have been great, but was this better than (lamely) going right back to e7? |
|Nov-17-03|| ||Outcast Searcher: I think the folks who are talking about conspiracy theories, etc. for this match just don't realize how BIZARRE computer chess can be. (Since I've written a couple of chess programs and followed/researched computer chess for 20+ years, I actually know something about the subject). Whatever algorithm is used -- it's all whether the search finds something useful. If it does, the machine looks brilliant. If it doesn't the machine looks clueless, since it's actual "understanding" of chess outside its search results are exactly that of a BRICK.
One would THINK the programmers might try to have the weights tuned slightly against closed positions, so the machine would go for (even slightly unfavorable) pawn exchanges where there is serious danger of a very closed position. Apparently not. |
|Nov-18-03|| ||masig: Outcast Searcher: <Whatever algorithm is used -- it's all whether the search finds something useful.> I'm just curious, what metric is applied to evaluate the utility of a search? In this sense I think there will always be a human chess player (maybe not Kaspy) that will better even the most powerful chess programs because it is practically impossible to nail down a fool-proof win-all mathematical metric for an out-of-theory or novel chess move. Said another way, how do you programmers put value on gut feel and strategy? |
|Nov-18-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Programmers tend to try to emulate positional chess, because computers cannot really play with a clear strategy in mind, but can play moves as if they do. For example, if a programmer wanted a program to favor piece activity and scope, he might assign a +0.02 evaluation value bias to each legal move available to each side. So if white has 50 available moves in total, he would get an extra +1 bonus while if black had only 25 available moves in total, he would get an extra 0.5 bonus, and the computer would thus favor white. But this is not a fool proof algorithm in real chess. The problem is that quality is as key as quantity. So the programmers might assign a higher evaluation bonus to based on other factors, like piece activity specifically in the center (which tends to be more important than when it's on the rim.) Maybe they assign a +0.05 bonus for each square in the center instead of +0.02. But then sometimes central piece activity can be ultimately irrelevant, like if there is some very strong play going on near the kingside and mate is threatened. It doesn't matter then how much mobility and control you have over the center if your'e down a king. So then yet again, the programmers have a problem, the computer does not realize the exceptions to the rules, and they must tweak the algorithm to realize higher truths. That's basically how programmers constantly revise programs- they know that it is impossible to show the computer how to play strategically because the computer is just a pile of metal and switches. Instead, the programmers each year try to find more and more accurate algorithms- they *won't* lead to positional chess, but they will emulate it so well in *most* positions that it would be considered as such. The above is not such a position. |
|Nov-21-03|| ||Outcast Searcher: masig: <how do you programmers put value on gut feel and strategy?>|
You can put values on anything you can describe with an equation. The two chief "problems" are: 1). It is very difficult to accurately classify an entire position with equations. So, like Benjamin Lau described, typically many small values are assigned to lots of tiny features in the position. These values are all summed up to give an overall assessment of the position. These rules of thumb aren't consistently accurate - so the computer only plays "reasonably" where they are overall.
2. The goal is generally to have the best performance IN THE SHORT RUN. So far, the best way to do this has been to build a program that resembles a big hammer. It mostly just searchers TONS of positions very fast and uses tricks to eliminate as many bad positions from the search tree as quickly as possible. Then, the program that searches deepest tends to be the strongest. IMO, that's why programs haven't gotten stronger since Deep Thought won its match in 1997. Any gains in quality of positional understanding have been more than offset by running slower. (Deep thought could analyze about 200 million positions/second, whereas Fritz X3D only could handle 2 to 4 million, depending on which source you look at). Bigger hammers are FREE as time goes by (Moore's law -- computers get a lot faster).
For example, my first program (with me being completely ignorant of the chess programming literature and theory and only writing it for fun and creativity as a college project) I did something kind of unique for the time. I tried to use human-like judgement and only had the program look one full move deep and then analyze a LOT of things about those positions. So, for example, king safety could have a huge weight in a strong attack. The result was a program that would sac. pieces, even its queen. If it worked, it looked brilliant. If it didn't it looked like a total moron. BUT IT WAS FUN TO WATCH. It was fun to hear a group of people teamed up to play it swear a bloody streak as it chased their king across the board. Aside from the Chessmaster "Personality" emulation you see in the CM 6000 and above programs (i.e. part of the teaching mode), you just don't see that kind of stuff in chess programs, in my experience. Of course, if the goal is money or succss RIGHT NOW - that's what to expect, I guess.
|Nov-21-03|| ||damsel: TO BENJAMIN LAU OR ANYONE WITH ANANSWER If Gk offered Fritz a draw and Fritz was seeing a .01 advantage, would the programmers accept? ( if Gary had no time problems) |
|Nov-21-03|| ||shadowmaster: Damsel, I believe the policy of the programmers was:
1) If the position showed Fritz down more than 2.0, they would consider resigning. In the third game, the computer showed pretty close to 0 but the programmers resigned because the commentators and spectators were deriding the play of the machine.
2) A draw would be taken only if it was obvious that the position was going to be repeated or if the material was inadequate.
|Nov-21-03|| ||Eggman: Incidentally, does anyone besides me think that Fritz's operators resigned a tad prematurely in game 3? Especially considering GK's blunder in the previous game, shouldn't they have played on? |
|Nov-21-03|| ||PinkPanther: <Incidentally, does anyone besides me think that Fritz's operators resigned a tad prematurely in game 3? Especially considering GK's blunder in the previous game, shouldn't they have played on?>|
Honestly, I think they were tired of being embarassed by their creation. It made a number of rather comical moves becuase quite honestly it had no plan. And to make empty moves while Kasparov is lining up for the kill seems to me a good enough reason to go ahead and pull the plug (no pun intended).
|Nov-21-03|| ||drukenknight: No, I agree w/ Eggman, they pulled the plug way too early. |
But it becomes difficult to criticize these computer games, for a number of reasons. 1) moves that look silly may have to be played because of deep considerations; 2) some games appear to look staged or not for real, but that is just the nature of chess. We've seen that for a long time. From the games of Keres/Botwinnik, to the draws in Curacao, etc.
Having said that, I still agree w/ Eggman. THe logic just doesnt stand to reason. How many moves had game 3 gone? almost 40? How many more perfectly sound moves would Kasp have had to make to win that game? ANother 25 or 30?
Do the math. there's no guarantee that Kasp could find every single move. And we assume the computer will play flawlessly. Hence there is no logical reason not to keep playing.
So again, I dunno. That's why it's dangerous to critique these games.
Is there a tacit agreement between the parties, that if the man has an edge the machine will concede that, and not make him play it out?
IT's possible. I would not think that too unfair either, since the man has to work hard. But again we dont know.
even more suspicious was that draw a few months ago w/ Kasp/computer. After he had sacked the R. Why not play that out?
|Nov-21-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: <1) If the position showed Fritz down more than 2.0, they would consider resigning. In the third game, the computer showed pretty close to 0 but the programmers resigned because the commentators and spectators were deriding the play of the machine.>|
I think actually the advantage for white in tat game was 1.5 or so, not "close to 0." But the commentators were already giving lines to each other and hinting that the end was near. The programmers were tired of the humiliation, saw that the 1.5 was slowing getting bigger and closer to 2, and resigned.
|Nov-21-03|| ||Benjamin Lau: Btw you guys, wouldn't it make more sense to talk about the 3rd game on the page for the third game? |
|Dec-19-03|| ||Chessnut Chris: Game 2 of the man V machine, Kasparov bludered against X3D Fritz and went down in flames. But was his position prior to his blunder winning? In the position that he bludered with 38...Rg7?, is there a winning chance in 38. Rc7!? My Junior 8 thinks that, after Fritz simplified the pawn structure on the queenside with 28.cxd6, black has all the play. The more I look at blacks attacking chances after 32...Rc7, instead of the fateful 32...Rg7, the better it looks for black. Is this winning for black? Probably not, but I'm really not qualified to say. But what about the line 32...Rc7 (grabbing the c-file) 33.Rc4 (otherwise black can gang-up on the weak d5 pawn with ... Qf7 and ...Rc5 etc.) Rxc4 34.Qxc4 h4 35.g3 h3 and black has a lasting advantage on the kingside and a better pawn structure. What do people think? |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
Kasparov on Kasparov: Part I