Ever since the invention of the computer it seems as if Humans have been attempting to create a machine that can play chess better and faster than any human past, present, or future. Ever since Deep Blue’s defeat of Garry Kasparov, it seems that the goal has been achieved. With programs like Deep Junior and Fritz now readily available, it would have to be stated that there is now no human on earth that is capable of competing with the new generation of superhuman chess programs. While Humans may be more creative than a chess computer, they cannot compete with the speed and accuracy with which the new chess computers analyze their games. I ask of anyone to disprove this statement and further the support the argument that a human with its feeble little mind can compete, and defeat a superhuman chess computer.
Please coment on this argument. I would like to hear what others think about this issue.
Any computer in existence was conceived of, designed, built and programmed by human beings. I defy any machine to build of its own accord a chess-playing supercomputer.
you fool, don't encourage them, as if they ever find a means to self replicate we are doomed. Chess computers do have problems that can be exploited tho ; http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/computers.htm
I still remember reading all this articles about how "Computer beats human" or b-s like "Artificial intelligence" being superior than that of human beings.
I agree with onosson; Computers where designed, manufactured and programmed by humans. When you play a computer you don't play it's "intelligence" since there's no such thing. You really play a lot of programmers and chess professionals. You play years of evolution in chess openings and books all at the same time. The piece of plastic in front of you get all that preset knowledge for granted so you there's really no way to compare our complex mind to their pre-established logical rules.
I understand the meaning of the word intelligence is "To read between lines" meaning you know A and you know C.. then you can deduct the B between them without anyone explaining the exact relation between C and B or A and B. Well... computers cant do that. They have no discerning abilities beyond the preestablished parameters given to them. Computers don't understand anything at all and will never be able to create or improvise since thei are limited by those parameters. And guess who gives them their parameters to "think" in the first place... WE do.
Now.. back to the post itself. ¿Do I think humans can beat supercomputers at chess? probably not. There will be a time (soon) where computers will be completely unbeatable by us, even in fast games.
The point is that doesn't prove anything. Only chess programs are geting more powerful and programers smarter.
sorry for the grammar and spelling.
This is a good point and one that I've made before. Deep Blue wasn't a victory of machines over humans, it was a victory of machine-building humans over chess-playing humans. Rybka 3's chess prowess is just an example of human tool-building prowess. We're very good at tool-making, and we've designed an excellent chess playing tool.
For all its capabilities, computers don't have any feeling, any laughter, any dreams, any disappointments, any love, any excitement... etc
stwils
I wonder if there will come one day, that computers will get so strong, that they will be able to drill down deep and fast enough to reach the point where a statement like "White always wins" can be proven. Or will it be "Black always wins" ?
Does deep blue's victory over Kasparov really prove that computers are better than humans at chess? Maybe K's game was off that match.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think later matches between GMs and computers have ended as draws. So maybe good humans can't beat a good computer, but a computer also can't beat a good human.
A good engine is better than the average chess player, that is certain. But are they better than the best human players? I don't think so.
I don't understand why anyone thinks this is even interesting. Of course all machines are built (as in designed) by humans. We have had machines that can travel faster than we can and machines that can live more weight than we can and can perform any number of tasks faster and more accurately than we can ever since the days of the calculator. Sooner of later (if not already) machines will easily be able to beat the best human at chess. So what? It's not a surprise nor even remarkable.
GM Milov recently won an odds match against Rybka 3, the undisputed king of chess engines. Afterwards, he said he thought he had a good chance to beat Rybka with the only odds being that he get to play the white pieces in every game. He believed he could win such a match if he spent the necessary time to prepare for it. Personally, I'd like to see such a match except I'd like for the human player to have 2x or 3x as much time to compensate for the fact that the computer doesn't get tired etc. I think with sufficient time, a skilled human would convincingly defeat Rybka. Our strength is our ability to form and execute long term strategies. We will never match up with computers tactically but strategically we are vastly superior and for this reason, the human player always has a chance of winning.
This is simply not true. The best chess engines have already proven their superiority over top GM's which is why all human vs computer matches these days are odds matches. Without some form of odds, the best human players don't stand any chance at all.
well said gumpty
(even if you do have a strange name) :)
As a computer programmer that knows how chess programs work, I'll tell you a couple things, I don't believe that Deep Blue II even beat Kasparov (Kasparov asked IBM for logs, they didn't provide it, he said they made modifications to Deep Blue to beat him), and Deep Blue also had access to all of Kasparov's games, Kasparov did not. Hence it's sort of silly to think Kasparov lost to Deep Blue II in reality.
Computers don't really think, and cannot improvise, but that doesn't mean they are not intelligent.
Intelligence doesn't exist. It's an illusion.
Programs are not very complex, they are complex in calculations, but they don't have emotion and they aren't programmed to create ideas randomly or emotionally, hence they don't think like humans. That doesn't mean they cannot think like humans.
Their immitation can outperform humans. They don't have to and should NOT act like humans, or they would be inferior.
Kasparov is an extremely experienced human with all knowledge and situational expertise, he has ideas and he also doesn't make many mistakes. THat's what makes him good.
On the other hand, the chess program, does not have emotion, decision making problems, and consciousness, hence it doesn't make mistakes, and it doesn't hesitate (hence if Kasparov played Deep Blue on 5 minute blitz, he would lose always).
While I understand your point, I think it's a misplaced analogy.
We know we're slow. We know we can't outrun the lion or the cheetah, the dog or even the damn cat. But at the same time we've always known that we could out think them. This is why it was a very significant event when Kasparov lost to Deep Blue. For the first time, humans had designed a machine that could beat the very best human at a game that everyone considers to be the ultimate battle of wits. That's why it was a worldwide story when Kasparov lost. Even people who don't give a damn about chess knew upon hearing the news that it was a significant event. A line had been crossed and there was no going back. Was it important? Not in any real way but symbolically, I think it was monumentally important.
I have no idea how old you are. If you are too young to remember what it was like before computers were commonplace you probably don't understand the significance of the event. For the rest of us, it was a watershed moment.
It's symbolic only because people don't understand computers or programs.
The reality is, it would not be as monumental if Deep Blue was actually an Synthetically Intelligent program that was able to out-wit Kasparov because of better ideas or self-created strategies.
Deep Blue is just a database of strategies, book openings, and sheer high powered calculation of important values on chess pieces and the ability to know what's going to happen 10-15 moves ahead with every moving piece. Not to mention access to Kasparov's older games for custom programming.
Humans can beat computers, computers can beat Humans, BUT it all depends on:
1. WHO is playing.
2. The level at which they are playing at.
3. Humans make mistakes, BUT computers don't have the same judgement as Humans do.
ADK
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.