Reply
Wed 13 May, 2015 03:51 pm
On this day, May 11th, 1997, 'IBM’s supercomputer Deep Blue makes chess history by defeating Garry Kasparov, the chess champion widely regarded as the greatest who has ever lived. The Russian master conceded defeat after 19 moves in the sixth game of the tournament, losing the match 2.5 to 3.5. It was the first defeat of a reigning world champion by a machine in tournament play."
Were there computer experts who entered the data into Big Blue?
“What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.” John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” Mark Twain
@Rickoshay75,
Quote:Were there computer experts who entered the data into Big Blue?
All Big Blue is (that version) exists as a computer with an advanced program with data/databases The data and routines ... defensive and offensive scenarios ... are strategies and as such are all part of a programmed set of responses.
Nothing Big Blue does happens by itself in the strict sense.
@Rickoshay75,
You could ask the same question about Kasparov.
Did Kasparov play BIG BLUE by himself... or was he relying on teaching and games and information that was fed to him by experts, book authors and other players.
There were quite a few people (starting with his parents) who entered data into Kasparov's brain. He had access to all of that information while he was playing Big Blue.
There's a rumor circulating that "Big Blue" was really just Anatoly Karpov in a box.
@Kolyo,
If that were true, Kasparov would have won the match.
@Kolyo,
That's a scurrilous rumor.
This event was an ancient history as this match occurred 18 years ago and has been answered and ell documented in books and well reported facts:
"Kasparov and other chess masters blamed the defeat on a single move made by the IBM machine. Either at the end of the first game or the beginning of the second, depending on who's telling the story, the computer made a sacrifice that seemed to hint at its long-term strategy.
Kasparov and many others thought the move was too sophisticated for a computer, suggesting there had been some sort of human intervention during the game. "It was an incredibly refined move, of defending while ahead to cut out any hint of countermoves," grandmaster Yasser Seirawan told Wired.com in 2001, "and it sent Garry into a tizzy."
Fifteen years after the historical match, one of Big Blue's designers says the move was the result of a bug in Deep Blue's software.
The revelation was published in a book by statistician and New York Times journalist Nate Silver, titled The Signal and the Noise -- and promptly highlighted by Ezra Klein of the Washington Post.
For his book, Silver interviewed Murray Campbell, one of the three IBM computer scientists who designed Deep Blue, and Murray told him that the machine was unable to select a move and simply picked one at random."
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
That's a scurrilous rumor.
I was just messing with people.
In any case, it's a moot point, since chess engines have drastically improved since then and now have ELO ratings of 3300,
meaning they can beat any human 10 times out of 10.
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
Fifteen years after the historical match, one of Big Blue's designers says the move was the result of a bug in Deep Blue's software.
...
For his book, Silver interviewed Murray Campbell, one of the three IBM computer scientists who designed Deep Blue, and Murray told him that the machine was unable to select a move and simply picked one at random."
If only we could take a closer look at the machine's code. It may hold the key to making machines creative. One should throw in a bit of randomness for a tendency to experiment, make mistakes, and learn from them.
@Kolyo,
Quote:. One should throw in a bit of randomness for a tendency to experiment, make mistakes, and learn from them.
Now if only they could be 'taught' to be random at the proper time?
Kasparov proved that there was one thing that humans have that a machine still can not replicate... that is the ability to choke under pressure.
(Joke making the rounds in 1997)
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
Quote:. One should throw in a bit of randomness for a tendency to experiment, make mistakes, and learn from them.
Now if only they could be 'taught' to be random at the proper time?
If fate decrees that you to be taught random, you will be taught random, probably not the way you expect...
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.” Mark Twain
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace