|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 19 OF 22 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-30-05 | | s4life: > Supergrandmaster: This entire conversation runs aground from the true difficulty surrounding human vs. computer chess playing, namely that the Hydra computer utilizes an extensive human chess games database in order to destroy its opponents. At this time, it is impossible to create a purely mathematical, and therefore potentially perfect playing engine, that is why computers can never beat men -- they are the sum of all the greatest chess players, but they do not optimize or surpass them as perfect probabilistic engines!
>
Well, go is arguably a more complicated game than chess (there won't be computers winning 9-dan players for a long time in the future), nevertheless a mini-go in a 5by5 board has already been solved (that means you got your mathematical model for go). So it's possible to build a precise model for these type of problems, but you need an astronomical number of processors to back up your theoretical results..
Combinatorial problems like these (go or chess) are pouring in huge numbers in many other areas (drug discovery, genetics, mechanics, physics, etc) and are proving to be the main obstacle for further development of science and technology.
It's gonna take from 10 to 100 years to be able to solve these problems in a reasonable amount of time, but it's just another challenge for human creativity and it will therefore finally be overcome. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | notsodeepthought: <Vanka> You hit the nail on the head - the problem with Hydra's clear superiority isn't that matches between human GMs are no longer interesting. Of course they still are (as most GMs impartially hastened to add after the match). The problem is: will sponsors still pay for a chess match that may be perceived as NOT being the highest level in the game? In every competitive activity (chess, football/soccer, car racing...) the big bucks are available only at the highest level. If humans are going to be looked at as second best, the funds may dry up. I hope I'm wrong... |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | Dinobird: It's funny how this thread has become bitter in our remarks to eachother. Perhaps it is the shame of human defeat? Haha, no I'm just kidding... but the thread truly has become bitter... I think that Kramnik could put up a good match against Hydra. I'm not saying he'll necessarily win, he could, or draw, or maybe come within a point difference. He drew Fritz, and it is evident from these games that Hydra lacks in strategy a bit... similar to Fritz. Furthermore, I think a team of Kasparov (in his prime) and Kramnik could give Hydra a similar beating! :). So we shouldn't lose hope on human superiority (yet)! |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | Dinobird: And by the way, now we have something to look forward to... a new chess superstar rising up and defeating the computers!
We know it's possible, because Hydra didn't play PERFECTLY in its match with Adams, even though it displayed an amazing performance. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | THE pawn: I don't know if you guys have read the interview with Michael Adams after his match against Hydra, but it was quite interesting actually ( on chessbase.com) We clearly can tell this and that, but none of us are GMs...at least not GMs of Michael's level. So in brief, these are the most interesting facts that I remembered: Hydra is definitely much stronger than when he played GM Nickel, so Arno's two wins mean nothing now, because Hydra's no longer....the old Hydra. That also applies to the tournament where he didn't even make the quarter finals, or the games vs topalov, Karjakin and pono for that matter. Adams clearly said that with black, there is just no way to win the game, the best thing you can do is draw and even that is a huge, huge task. On the other hand, with white, you can put up a good match against him, unless, like him, you get into time trouble. But even with white, getting a win is a tremedous task. so that's why it is important to see other games with super GMs against Hydra, because Adams said the computer is extremely strong, but not invincible. Adams' best pick against the comp: ...Kasparov. He cleary stated that no actual Gm could do better than Kasparov
and I agree with him.
So you guys can say whatever you want, I guess no one can beat Hydra with black now and with white, you've got to have a prefect prep. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | OneBadDog: <The problem is: will sponsors still pay for a chess match that may be perceived as NOT being the highest level in the game? In every competitive activity (chess, football/soccer, car racing...) the big bucks are available only at the highest level. If humans are going to be looked at as second best, the funds may dry up. I hope I'm wrong... > I don't think this will be a problem. My guess is that people who enjoy chess and keep up with chess events will always enjoy human vs human competetions, even if computers are stronger. Personally, I keep up with human events such as Corus and Linares and couldn't care less about computer events. |
|
| Jun-30-05 | | notsodeepthought: <OneBadDog> Fair enough - I still care about human events (too). But if the big sponsors pull out, there won't BE a Corus or Linares left. In the same vein, I wonder - and I honestly don't know the answer - whether that has been an issue in checkers, a simpler game in that it has been completely solved (by the Chinook program), and where computers have been clearly stronger than humans for some time now. |
|
| Jul-01-05 | | OneBadDog: I remember one criticism of the Matrix Reloaded was that it's hard for people to get interested in seing virtual beings beat up on each other. |
|
| Jul-01-05 | | csmath: One of the things about "science" fiction is that it was never very good in predicting the future. Modern semiconductor devices we use and call computers have nothing to do with the Holywood mumbo-jumbo. I fail to see any underlying logic, consistency, or inteligent concept in those movies. On the other hand programs we feed computers nowadays are very logical, quite inteligent, and nowhere as simpleminded as the crap in Matrix franchise. |
|
| Jul-01-05 | | Quark: I dont think movies are here to play the oracle predicting the future or even less present us some kind of perfect architect who would give us a detailled explanation of some complicated new mathematical theory, no i think movie are here to give us some fun :) like chess. |
|
| Jul-01-05 | | Wilhelm: From Adams interview I also liked his sincerity regarding "preparation" or anti-computer chess: he said if he'd prepared he'd have lost 1.5-4.5 anyway. Even given enough time, I doubt he would have consider "more preparation", it is clear than his intention was not to close the position at all cost, in detriment of his own game. That was a good decision, in my opinion, even it meant giving more chances to the computer. Naturally, a player who likes play in closed games would have a better chance of putting Hydra into a cage. |
|
| Jul-01-05 | | OneBadDog: <csmath> Big news! Science fiction doesn't predict the future! Any body who thinks that Science Fiction writers are trying to predict the future misunderstand the purpose of Science Fiction and of literature in general. Films like the Matrix are METAPHORS about society and humanity.
Do you understand what a metaphor is? |
|
| Jul-01-05 | | csmath: <<Films like the Matrix are METAPHORS about society and humanity.>> If that is your judgment about Holywood's garbage for 12-year-old video game addicts no wonder you understand so much about computers and software. |
|
Jul-01-05
 | | Sneaky: The first Matrix movie was a brilliant political metaphor, but 99% of the people who saw the movie never caught on, and it was a success in spite of its profound message, not because of it. Then the sequels, as is usually the case, were utter trash riding on the coat tails of the original. |
|
Jul-01-05
 | | tpstar: What is the Matrix?!
Botvinnik vs G A Thomas, 1936 |
|
| Jul-01-05 | | OneBadDog: <csmath> Re garding your views on the Matrix, Read Sneaky's last post. Re: my knowledge of software, that's not anything I've discussed on this site-let's just say that It's a little presumptuous to state what I person knows or doesn't know about a given topic.<tpstar> The MAtrix was a 199 Sci-fi flick starring Keanu Reeves, Lawrence Fishburne and Joe Pantoliano. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | csmath: Who is Joe Pantoliano?
No wonder you have George Bush as a President when Matrix movie represents a "brilliant" "metaphor" with "profound" messages about the society/politics or whatnot for you. One of the essence of art as we have discussed here many times is a conscienceous effort of the artist meaning that the artist intended to create. If you cannot understand that then everything is art for you. You can get a burger in McDonalds and make any interpretation of that burger for yourself or pretend there is something sofisticated in it, beside industrial meat and refrigerated vegetables. The same with the movies like Matrix. It is nothing more than a consumerist garbage in attractive visual package produced for the consumption of ignorant people that do not really have any understanding of their society/politics nor culture. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | Catfriend: <csmath> The fathers of the sci-fi, Vern and Wells, predicted with year-precision the creation of the A-bomb (it's a term invented by Wells tens of years before 1942!), radiation, flight, H-bomb, N-bomb, internet etc. That was not their goal, but they succeeded all the same! |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: <One of the essence of art as we have discussed here many times is a conscienceous effort of the artist meaning that the artist intended to create. If you cannot understand that then everything is art for you. > Maybe art is where you find it. Works of art are reinterpreted all of the time. Although the intent of the artist is clear in some works of art, the intent is obscured or not evident at all in other works. There is more to art than just the intention of the artist. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: <The same with the movies like Matrix. It is nothing more than a consumerist garbage in attractive visual package produced for the consumption of ignorant people that do not really have any understanding of their society/politics nor culture.> Have you ever watched the Matrix? Do you know what messages the film was intended to convey? I'd really like to hear your answers to these qustions. Oh, and one other thing, what is your understanding of "their society/politics or culture". I'm waitiong for you response. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | csmath: <<The fathers of the sci-fi, Vern and Wells, predicted with year-precision the creation of the A-bomb (it's a term invented by Wells tens of years before 1942!), radiation, flight, H-bomb, N-bomb, internet etc.
That was not their goal, but they succeeded all the same!>> I cannot go much into Wells but since I have a small library of Jules Verne and I used to read it quite a bit when I was younger I can tell you that he wrote a lot of very, very imaginative things (a lot more interesting than Matrix anyway) so there is a lot of things that can be derived from his writtings. Many of those things, while fascinating, are quite ridiculous today. I don't think Verne should be lauded as a prophet of any sort but rather as a skilful writer. The concepts he was writing about were not neccessarily as original as you might think. By the way the movie Matrix we are talking about is nothing more than garbage, yes I saw it as well as the sequels. That is all nothing more than inconsistent mumbo-jumbo. The whole franchise was made to cash in on video game addicts. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | WMD: <Have you ever watched the Matrix? Do you know what messages the film was intended to convey? I'd really like to hear your answers to these qustions.> Yes and no. As sci-fi films go, I prefer something like Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: Battlefield Earth is another sci-fi classic. |
|
| Jul-02-05 | | OneBadDog: For an interesting take on the debate on science, computers and society, take a look at this article: http://www.philosophersnet.com/maga... |
|
Jul-02-05
 | | WannaBe: <OBD: Battlefield Earth is another sci-fi classic.> I hope you are kidding... If you're not, may I add Fifth Element to that list of 'classics'. :-)) |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 19 OF 22 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
