3 ms·

I agree with most of your point, but have to quibble with the assertion that computers are not "better" at chess. Deep Blue was able to beat arguably the great

I agree with most of your point, but have to quibble with the assertion that computers are not "better" at chess. Deep Blue was able to beat arguably the greatest chess player ever. Computer chess programs today are far stronger than Deep Blue, and could almost certainly defeat any human player. The way they decide moves is different that humans, but it is also objectively better at achieving the goal (of winning).

jacquesm 16y ago
At a power budget that literally dwarfs the power expended by the human. At the current state of technology it is an uneven match by a significant margin. Computers are 'better' not when they reach the goal via the same path as humans do but when all other factors being equal (size, power consumption, access to pre-programmed data and so on) they beat the best human player. And I don't think we're there yet, deep blue was not a universal computer by any stretch of the imagination.
- mquander 16y ago
  I don't believe the power budget dwarfs a human's, at least not in a measurable way. Resources online suggest that the human brain probably uses about 20 watts. Small laptops don't use much more than that, I don't think, and a small laptop can probably beat any human at chess (since Kramnik lost to a 2006 version of Fritz running on a Core 2 Duo with a crippled tablebase.)
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    That's an impressive feat, what I remember of the 'deep blue' match was that it was a special purpose rig with thousands of FPGAs wired up with chess specific circuitry. Iirc the Kramnik match was not exactly a show of strength for Kramnik, also, he is not the current ruling world champion in chess (though he was when he lost that match, but that's why we keep on playing tournaments, the current champion is this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand). That said, Fritz is imo a very impressive piece of software, much more so than deep blue ever was. edit: I just looked at the wikipedia entry, the 'crippling' was with respect to the end-game tables, typically that's not a really big deal unless you have the bad luck to end in an end game where you need those tables, in that case such a game usually ends in a draw. In none of the games that were played that seems to have made much difference, and Kramnik messing up was what sealed the match.
    - mquander 16y ago
      About the tablebases, I disagree; having a more extensive tablebase means that you can short-circuit calculations earlier in the game (because you immediately know the evaluation if your calculation results in a tablebase position.) So it helps even if you don't actually end up playing into a six-or-less-piece endgame. It's obviously hard to say, but it's certainly conceivable that it hurt Fritz's play in a few of the games which wound up being drawn. I didn't mention it, but another condition of the match greatly favoring Kramnik was that the computer's opening book was completely open to him as well -- he could view all of Fritz's move weightings and statistics during the openings (an attempt at "fairness" given the computer's theoretically more extensive knowledge.) If you're not aware, Fritz is also no longer at the top of the heap in computer chess. http://www.rybkachess.com/ http://www.rybkachess.com/
      - jacquesm 16y ago
        > About the tablebases, I disagree; Agreed, thank you for your expansion on this, I had not thought through the consequences.

jacquesm 16y ago

At a power budget that literally dwarfs the power expended by the human. At the current state of technology it is an uneven match by a significant margin. Computers are 'better' not when they reach the goal via the same path as humans do but when all other factors being equal (size, power consumption, access to pre-programmed data and so on) they beat the best human player. And I don't think we're there yet, deep blue was not a universal computer by any stretch of the imagination.

mquander 16y ago
I don't believe the power budget dwarfs a human's, at least not in a measurable way. Resources online suggest that the human brain probably uses about 20 watts. Small laptops don't use much more than that, I don't think, and a small laptop can probably beat any human at chess (since Kramnik lost to a 2006 version of Fritz running on a Core 2 Duo with a crippled tablebase.)
- jacquesm 16y ago
  That's an impressive feat, what I remember of the 'deep blue' match was that it was a special purpose rig with thousands of FPGAs wired up with chess specific circuitry. Iirc the Kramnik match was not exactly a show of strength for Kramnik, also, he is not the current ruling world champion in chess (though he was when he lost that match, but that's why we keep on playing tournaments, the current champion is this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand). That said, Fritz is imo a very impressive piece of software, much more so than deep blue ever was. edit: I just looked at the wikipedia entry, the 'crippling' was with respect to the end-game tables, typically that's not a really big deal unless you have the bad luck to end in an end game where you need those tables, in that case such a game usually ends in a draw. In none of the games that were played that seems to have made much difference, and Kramnik messing up was what sealed the match.
  - mquander 16y ago
    About the tablebases, I disagree; having a more extensive tablebase means that you can short-circuit calculations earlier in the game (because you immediately know the evaluation if your calculation results in a tablebase position.) So it helps even if you don't actually end up playing into a six-or-less-piece endgame. It's obviously hard to say, but it's certainly conceivable that it hurt Fritz's play in a few of the games which wound up being drawn. I didn't mention it, but another condition of the match greatly favoring Kramnik was that the computer's opening book was completely open to him as well -- he could view all of Fritz's move weightings and statistics during the openings (an attempt at "fairness" given the computer's theoretically more extensive knowledge.) If you're not aware, Fritz is also no longer at the top of the heap in computer chess. http://www.rybkachess.com/ http://www.rybkachess.com/
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > About the tablebases, I disagree; Agreed, thank you for your expansion on this, I had not thought through the consequences.