I am going to go ahead and take Rybka's word for it that 28. Kh2 is in fact the right plan. If Rybka sees the right plan(28. Kh2, it is not suggesting 28. Qf1 does it?), it is not surprising that it choses 26. f4 and 27. fxe5. Pretty amazing though, maybe I should download it too :).

The problem that I have with Deep Blue, is that it obviously didn't see the right plan, but still played the strongest move.

<whatthefat> Nice analysis, Thanks.

<You can see though that it's not unreasonable to believe 26.f4 could be rated #1 given some more computational time (i.e., a few more ply).>

No, not unreasonable to this that, but I think this has mostly to do with Fritz finding a right plan, if he was able to find a right plan with a few more ply, than of course 26. f4 could become #1 choice.

Btw, my Fritz gives 28. Kh2 and 28. R3a2 the same reading of +.41, though 28.Qf1 is close with +.38 ; I didn't have it on for very long though.

<Dionyseus> Do all your engines suggest 26. f4? Do they all want to play 28. Kh2?

http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm

For those who would like to build their own parallel cluster supercomputer, you might check out the Beowulf Project:

http://www.beowulf.org/overview/how...

And for those who are looking for a substitute for sleep, you might take a look at:

http://www.donotsleep.com/

(But whatever you do, please do NOT fill a co-worker's cubicle with packing peanuts! Such a joke is not always laughed at: http://www.donotsleep.com/images/pr... )

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

P.S. Should anyone dispute the participation of Ms. Spears in her eponymous semiconductor physics website, please point them to the following photographic evidence:

http://britneyspears.ac/wallpaper/b...

Open your eyes.

Although the controversy may never be fully understood, I think all chess players can agree on one thing. Deep Blue in no way during the match, proved superiority over Kasparov. Probably one of the biggest overreactions since the 1938 radio reading of "The War of the Worlds" was the Deep Blue Match. Resigning in a drawn position and an absurd blunder in opening theory to me, just reveals a psychologically hurt Kasparov rather than a chess playing silicon monster. Yet you have the Deep Blue team saying, "I think people should consider this match between the greatest player in the world, and Garry Kasparov."

http://www.freewebs.com/itschessjim...

Seems appropriate somehow that a pre-Staunton Chess set should be used!

The person who posted this image ("mack") says the following:

=== quote ===

Hello Ninjas...

I bought a book cheap from my library today, 'Mathematics' (David Bergamini Time Life Books, 1972), and flicked onto the page about computers...

On p.34 there was the following curious picture [the picture linked above]...

Besides it is the text:

CHESS BY COMPUTER
A chess-playing computer makes its move on sheets printed with a chess board pattern. The best human players can still beat computers, but possibly not for long: machines are now being programmed to "remember" the consequences of every mistake they ever made.

So, who's playing here? What's going on? Which computer is that?

=== end quote ===

A writer called "xplor" responds:

=== quote ===

In 1962 about the time the book was written the first MIT chess program was written. It was the first chess program that played regular chess credibly. It was written by Alan Kotok for his B.S. thesis project, assisted by John McCarthy of Stanford. The program ran on an IBM 7090, looking at 1100 positions per second.

David Bergamini 1963. Mathematics. "The mathematics of beauty in nature and art"...

=== end quote ===

http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/u...

(Both messages were posted on May 19, 2004)

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

It was the commercial that introduced the Apple Macintosh to the world, and you may see it here (it should take about 40 seconds to load on a fast connection):

http://www.uriahcarpenter.info/1984...

The clever people at Apple Computer celebrated the 20th anniversary of this commercial by providing a version of it in which their heroine is wearing an iPod. (It is most visible at the moment she throws the hammer.) An excellent job of splicing (if you like that sort of thing)! Otherwise (as near as I can tell) the commercial is identical to the original. (This is actually a crisper version of the video than the one presented at the earlier link):

http://spherule.com/media/video/198...

More may be learned about this curious snippet of filmmaking and the role in played in the history of the personal computer (and the history of advertizing) here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_%...

The heroine is portrayed by athlete Anya Major. Apparently few of the actresses who tried out for the role could wield the sledge-hammer in the way necessary for the part. But Ms. Major was an experienced discus-thrower, and she seems to have had little difficulty with the demands of the role. (The Wikipedia piece on her says, "The petite, blonde [Ms. Anya] Major, an experienced discus thrower who had been discovered at a local health club, won the role on the basis of her looks and her ability to spin with the hammer without becoming dizzy....")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anya_M...

Ah, the computer. For good or for ill, we are, indeed, here at the revolution....

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -Arthur C. Clarke (Clarke's Third Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke... )

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

http://spreadsheets.google.com/

One nice feature of Google Spreadsheets is that you can BOOKMARK your spreadsheets in your web-browser. One-click-access to spreadsheets that you can edit from home, work, or on the road is really quite wonderful, I think! (If you do not logoff your Google account, access is faster, of course.)

The feature-set of Google Spreadsheets is modest compared with MS-Excel, and you probably wouldn't want to store any security-critical information "out there", but for relatively simple uses, it is really very nice. (Cell-widths and heights are fully configurable.)

For those who would like to keep a note-pad of Chess notes "out there" so that you can make notes relative to your online play, you might just try setting the column width of the first column very wide, so that it becomes a bit like a line-by-line text editor / word-processor.

Your Google Spreadsheets can also be backed up to your local machine easily. ("I have seen the future, and I've even created a backup copy!") They can also be shared with others (both write-access and read-only-access).

It's always fun to check in with Google Labs to see what those highly-creative folks are experimenting with (definitely worth a bookmark!)

http://labs.google.com/

Can a full-featured "Google Office" suite be far off?!? Are we entering the post-Microsoft age of personal computing?

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

Actually Deep Blue didn't think Kasparov would play 26...Nf6. Here's what Deep Blue thought was best when it played 26.f4 after thinking for 234 seconds :

26.f4 exf4 25.Bxe4 Rc8b8 26.Be3 Be7 27.axb5 axb5 28.Ba7 Rxb7

26.f4 might not be the strongest move anyways. Rybka 2.2 sticks to 26.Bd1 after 35 seconds, and as of depth 22 it still thinks Bd1 is best:

click for larger view

Canadian researchers report they have "solved" checkers, developing a program that cannot lose in a game popular with young and old alike for more than a thousand years.

"The [Chinook] program can achieve at least a draw against any opponent, playing either the black or white pieces," the researchers say in this week's online edition of the journal Science.

Source:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070719...

Here's an abstract of the Science article:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...

"The game of checkers has roughly 500 billion billion possible positions (5 x 1020). The task of solving the game, determining the final result in a game with no mistakes made by either player, is daunting. Since 1989, almost continuously, dozens of computers have been working on solving checkers, applying state-of-the-art artificial intelligence techniques to the proving process. This paper announces that checkers is now solved: perfect play by both sides leads to a draw. This is the most challenging popular game to be solved to date, roughly one million times more complex than Connect Four. Artificial intelligence technology has been used to generate strong heuristic-based game-playing programs, such as DEEP BLUE for chess. Solving a game takes this to the next level, by replacing the heuristics with perfection."

The Chinook Checkers Supercomputer which did the work:

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/

While you're there, why not try your hand PLAYING against Chinook?!?

http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/...

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ar...

=== begin quoted passage ===

July 19, 2007

Computers Solve Checkers—It's a Draw

King me! Top computer scientist proves perfect play leads to draw, recounts battle for world championship, gets kinged

By JR Minkel

Jonathan Schaeffer's quest for the perfect game of checkers has ended. The 50-year-old computer scientist from the University of Alberta in Edmonton left human players in the dust more than a decade ago after a trial by fire against the greatest checkers champion in history.

And now, after putting dozens of computers to work night and day for 18 years—jump, jump, jump—he says he has solved the game—king me!. "The starting position, assuming no side makes a mistake, is a draw," he says.

Schaeffer's proof, described today in Science ... would make checkers the most complex game yet solved by machines, beating out the checker-stacking game Connect Four in difficulty by a factor of a million....

"It's a milestone," says Murray Campbell, a computer scientist at IBM's T. J. Watson Research Center in Hawthorne, N.Y., and co-inventor of the chess program Deep Blue. "He's stretched the state of the art."

Although technological limits prohibit analyzing each of the 500 billion billion possible arrangements that may appear on an eight-by-eight checkerboard, Schaeffer and his team identified moves that guaranteed the game would end in a draw no matter how tough the competition.

Like any complicated mathematical proof, the result will have to withstand scrutiny. But "it's close to 100 percent," says computer scientist Jaap van den Herik of Maastricht University in the Netherlands, who has seen the details. "He has never published anything that was not completely true."

Opening Play: Walking a Precipice

Schaeffer's odyssey began in the late 1980s. He had written a top chess program but IBM was on the verge of pouring its far vaster resources into Deep Blue. "I like to be competitive," he says, so he turned his attention elsewhere. "I naively thought I could solve the game of checkers," he recalls. "You can teach somebody the rules in a minute."

Setting out in 1989 with 16 megabytes of computer memory, he quickly found that checkers, like chess, was too rich with possible positions to dash off a solution. So he switched gears, vowing to topple legendary checkers champion Marion Tinsley, who had lost only three games in tournament play since 1950.

In 1992 Schaeffer's program Chinook took on Tinsley, who had resigned as world champion when the American Checker Federation and English Draughts Association temporarily refused to sanction the man-computer matchup.

Tinsley was so good that his opponents played dull games in the hope of securing at least a draw, according to Schaeffer; Chinook apparently put the magic back in the game for the champ. "It played brash, aggressive moves—it walked on the edge of a precipice," Scheaffer anthropomorphizes. "It would do things people looked at and said, 'Man, is that program crazy?'"

The program actually beat Tinsley twice, but computer glitches led to a forfeit that gave the human a 3–2 lead with two games left in a best-of-40 match. Schaeffer set Chinook on an aggressive course to try to recoup, resulting in another loss for the computer that cost it and its creator the match, Schaeffer recounted in his book One Jump Ahead....

=== end quoted passage ===

-- Drew McDermott, Yale

True, or just another <Odd Lie>

If someone were to predict that 1) nearly all of the serious problems facing Humankind will be solved within the coming century (largely by means of advanced technology), and 2) YOU may be able to extend your lifespan to 200+ years (!!!) -- it would be tempting to dismiss that person as a wild-eyed dreamer.

But if that person had an established and very impressive track record of predicting the future (at least of advanced technology), and that person had actively contributed (in a major way) to the very technology that helped shape that future, it might be interesting to listen.

Such a person is Ray Kurzweil.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates said, "Ray Kurzweil is the best person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence. His intriguing new book ["The Singularity is Near"] envisions a future in which information technologies have advanced so far and fast that they enable humanity to transcend it's biological limitations -- transforming our lives in ways we can't yet imagine."

Kurzweil refers to an era he calls "the Singularity" that is fast approaching: "The Singularity is an era in which our intelligence will become increasingly non-biological and trillions of times more powerful than it is today -- the dawning of a new civilization that will enable us to transcend our biological limitations and amplify our creativity."

Here is the website Dr. Kurzweil has established for the book "The Singularity is Near":

http://www.singularity.com/

[continued below...]

And here is a timeline of many of his future predictions, all the way from the present to the year 2099 (including the prediction that "The concept of 'life expectancy' has become irrelevant to humans and machines thanks to medical immortality...") [Presented at Wikipedia, and subject to all the limitations of that amazing yet not-perfect user-edited resource]:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_ku...

At the website devoted to his book "Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever", we find, "Immortality is within our grasp . . .In 'Fantastic Voyage', high-tech visionary Ray Kurzweil teams up with life-extension expert Terry Grossman, M.D., to consider the awesome benefits to human health and longevity promised by the leading edge of medical science--and what you can do today to take full advantage of these startling advances. Citing extensive research findings that sound as radical as the most speculative science fiction, Kurzweil and Grossman offer a program designed to slow aging and disease processes to such a degree that you should be in good health and good spirits when the more extreme life-extending and life-enhancing technologies-- now in development--become available. This bridge to the future will enable those who dare to make the journey from this century to the next . . . and beyond."

http://www.fantastic-voyage.net/

Their website devoted to health and life extension:

http://www.rayandterry.com/

And here's a bit more about Dr. Kurzweil:

http://www.singularity.com/aboutray...

http://www.kurzweiltech.com/raybio....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_ku...

Dr. Kurzweil's companies:

http://www.kurzweiltech.com/

Two interesting videos of Dr. Kurzweil:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IfbOyw3C...

at Stanford University:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9PWXrnsS...

I would certainly love to believe that Dr. Kurzweil's vision of the future is accurate. However, I am not persuaded by his writing that such a future is ensured or even likely -- but I do believe something like it is *possible* (provided we keep it from taking a distinctly dystopian turn).

Even so, I find it worthwhile (as well as entertaining!) to explore his ideas -- with a mixture of skepticism, enthusiasm, concern, and hope....

[P.S. I am not affiliated with Dr. Kurzweil or any of his companies in any way. I just present these references here since I think many people might find his ideas interesting. (For those who are familiar with the writings of such thinkers as Alfred North Whitehead, Henri Bergson, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Sri Aurobindo Ghosh, Ken Wilbur, and others, it seems to me that Dr. Kurzweil arrives at a similar mystical or quasi-mystical (techno-mystical?) destination to that envisioned by these thinkers, though "up from below" (as it were) instead of "down from above" (as in the case of these other "process" philosophers.) ]

(: Bishop Berkeley :)