< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Nov-27-10|| ||micartouse: I just watched the movie on Google Video about this match. So sad how Kasparov made it all about him. It was disappointing how much applause he got for his disrespect of IBM, and the audience was even booing IBM! The movie looked itself looked like propaganda - all the directing was done in a way to make IBM look like a bunch of fascists. Really awful.|
|Apr-05-11|| ||BishopBerkeley: My favorite computer cartoon of all time (from 1985) has appeared online, though it's hard to tell how long it will stay put....|
It's one of the few cartoons I've seen that inspired a book!
=== begin quoted text ===
This book was inspired by the cover of a Datamation magazine that
appeared about 20 years ago. It shows a man in an office with what
used to be a desktop computer on the table in front of him. The poor
guy has his hands poised over the keyboard, but the rest of the
machine is in tiny pieces all over the room. His eyebrows have been
burned off, his hair is blown straight back, and his coffee cup has
tipped over. There's a huge cloud of black smoke over his head. It
is obvious that the computer has exploded about five seconds earlier.
He's thinking, "It's never done that before...."
[- from the book "It's Never Done That Before: A Guide to
Troubleshooting Windows XP (2006); from the introduction]
=== end quoted text ===
And here it is....
... in color (as it appeared on the Datamation cover):
... and in greyscale, as I first saw it:
Best wishes and careful computing to all!
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|Aug-23-11|| ||Albertan: Deep Blue Vs. Kasparov, Game 6:
|Aug-23-11|| ||JoergWalter: I have posted it before somewhere else
but it is fun to watch.
man vs. machine
|Aug-23-11|| ||bigatin: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/...|
|Aug-23-11|| ||bigatin: http://sentencing.typepad.com/files...|
|Aug-24-11|| ||JoergWalter: In 1997 the chairman of PSV Turm Duisburg (german chess bundesliga) announced Deep Blue to play on board one of the team. (true!!!).
It did not work out because Deep Blue did not have a valid passport|
|Sep-15-11|| ||sfm: Danish cartoon about Kasparov's loss to Deep Blue.
Kasparov says "Look, it can't even swim! Now it has to learn it! Stupid computer!"
and in the explaning box it says
"After the defeat, Kasparov wanted to test if the computer also was better at other things"
|Oct-04-11|| ||JoergWalter: <Kasparov comments on chess computers in an interview with Thierry Paunin on pages 4-5 of issue 55 of Jeux & Stratégie: |
‘Question: ... Two top grandmasters have gone down to chess computers: Portisch against “Leonardo” and Larsen against “Deep Thought”. It is well known that you have strong views on this subject. Will a computer be world champion, one day ...?
Kasparov: Ridiculous! A machine will always remain a machine, that is to say a tool to help the player work and prepare. Never shall I be beaten by a machine! Never will a program be invented which surpasses human intelligence. And when I say intelligence, I also mean intuition and imagination. Can you see a machine writing a novel or poetry? Better still, can you imagine a machine conducting this interview instead of you? With me replying to its questions?’>
|Jan-26-12|| ||whiteshark: Quote of the Day
"A few months after all the work I did on the <Deep Blue project>, at the US Championship, I thought <"miserable Earthlings, you have no chance against me!" <>>
-- Joel Benjamin
miserable Earthlings :D
|Mar-11-12|| ||whiteshark: Quote of the Day
"In certain situations, <Deep Blue> plays like a God.
Yet again Garry that doesn't make sense. Fact is that Deep Blue plays according to its output of binary codes lines and you sometimes play like ... [whatever].
|Mar-11-12|| ||kurtrichards: <...and you sometimes play like...[whatever].> ...miserable Earthling. |
|Mar-15-12|| ||whiteshark: Quote of the Day
I just think we should look at this as a chess match between the world's greatest chess player, and Garry Kasparov.
~ Lou Gerstner (IBM Chairman)
Once again I am pleasantly jiggererd by this quote! :D
|Mar-15-12|| ||Nemesistic: <whiteshark> It tickled me too that quote..|
And im sure Kasparov once said Deep Blue's attention to king safety was "lousy".. Strange thing to say!
|Sep-26-12|| ||Shams: I like Nate Silver but the chess-related nugget in his new book, "The Signal and the Noise," seems a bit silly.|
<Toward the end of my interview with him, [Murray] Campbell somewhat mischievously referred to an incident that had occurred toward the end of the first game in their 1997 match with Kasparov.
“A bug occurred in the game and it may have made Kasparov misunderstand the capabilities of Deep Blue,” Campbell told me. “He didn’t come up with the theory that the move it played was a bug.”
The bug had arisen on the forty-fourth move of their first game against Kasparov; unable to select a move, the program had defaulted to a last-resort fail-safe in which it picked a play completely at random. The bug had been inconsequential, coming late in the game in a position that had already been lost; Campbell and team repaired it the next day. “We had seen it once before, in a test game played earlier in 1997, and thought that it was fixed,” he told me. “Unfortunately there was one case that we had missed.”
In fact, the bug was anything but unfortunate for Deep Blue: it was likely what allowed the computer to beat Kasparov. In the popular recounting of Kasparov’s match against Deep Blue, it was the second game in which his problems originated—when he had made the almost unprecedented error of forfeiting a position that he could probably have drawn.
But what had inspired Kasparov to commit this mistake? His anxiety over Deep Blue’s forty-fourth move in the first game—the move in which the computer had moved its rook for no apparent purpose. Kasparov had concluded that the counterintuitive play must be a sign of superior intelligence. He had never considered that it was simply a bug.>
|Sep-26-12|| ||galdur: And nothing more has been heard of this project since back then. Seems kind of strange. But of course chess would be extremely insignificant as corporate interests are concerned.|
|Sep-26-12|| ||Shams: <galdur> The 1997 match was a PR boon for IBM, who declined to offer Garry a rematch (frustratingly, since the match score was tied 1-1) and sold Deep Blue off within the year.|
|Sep-26-12|| ||galdur: <Shams> Yeah, I guess DB has been trading stocks and maybe managing drones on the side.|
|Sep-26-12|| ||Shams: <galdur> Or, given Moore's law, it's running a mobile phone OS somewhere.|
|Oct-06-14|| ||offramp: When will computers be able to read lips, like HAL in <2001>?|
|Feb-23-15|| ||whiteshark: Quote of the Day
"Saying <Deep Blue> doesn't really think about chess is like saying an airplane doesn't really fly because it doesn't flap its wings. "
-- Drew McDermott
|Feb-23-15|| ||BishopofBlunder: I remember watching "Game Over" and thinking it made Joel Benjamin seem to be a bitter little man with a great hatred for Kasparov.|
Not that anyone could blame him...
|Aug-09-16|| ||BishopBerkeley: Jeff Bezos: "Humans are VERY efficient. If AlphaGo was limited to 50 watts like us, it would have been crushed." (Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, as quoted by Silicon Valley legend Bill Gross).|
The Human vs Machine: AlphaGo (Google DeepMind) vs Lee Sedol match received much press coverage:
The ancient game of Go is significant (in part) because, by important metrics, it has a greater game complexity than Chess:
Jeff Bezos' remark raises an interesting possibility: what if we were to limit Chess computers by POWER, limiting them (as he suggests) to 50 watts (or whatever the human limit is).
It would be an interesting equalization!
I hope you are all well & in good spirits....
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|Aug-09-16|| ||AylerKupp: <BishopBerkeley> If the criteria for equalizing humans and computers in chess playing is based on power and if that limit is around 50 watts, then we are already there. Modern laptops have peak power utilization of about 60 watts and in energy efficient mode probably less. And in a match between a 50-watt consuming laptop running a modern engine and Carlsen, I wouldn't bet on Carlsen.|
I have previously suggested that perhaps a good way to handicap computers to bring them down to the level of humans is by time handicapping. After all, if the computer's main advantage over humans is their speed and capacity of calculation, then a logical way to make the odds more even is to limit the amount of calculation they can do by giving the human a time handicap.
The issue is then to determine how much of a handicap does the human need to be given in order to equalize the odds. I have suggested an approach that will not require too much human time to determine this handicap, most recently here: Stockfish (Computer) (kibitz #117). But I doubt that there would be much interest in trying it.
And thanks for the good wishes.
|Apr-16-17|| ||epistle: This belongs here--
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·