3 ms·

I believe there is a consensus in the chess world that given any incentive, it would be easy for someone to put together a machine that can beat any human alive

I believe there is a consensus in the chess world that given any incentive, it would be easy for someone to put together a machine that can beat any human alive. The algorithms at this point are well-known and tested; it's just a matter of having enough hardware to search deeply enough to match a world-champion player within the tournament time constraints. edit: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54499 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?tid=54499

bitdiddle 17y ago
I believe this is correct. I worked at T J Watson during this famous match and if I recall the consensus in the halls was that these CMU grads had some interesting hardware hacks but the program was essentially the classic heuristic search with evaluation function. I think computers also have been used to work out some end game solutions
mwpolen 17y ago
I do not think this is the case. If you follow chess and the matches where a top GM plays a computer you will find most of the time it is a draw. There was an article on chessbase many years ago that showed that chess program rating had stopped growing as fast and they were leveling out just as player ratings level out. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1292 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1292
- eru 17y ago
  Perhaps we are coming closer to optimal play?
- ca98am79 17y ago
  This is definitely the case. Check out Rybka - it has been rated 3200+. No human being comes close.
  - mwpolen 17y ago
    Time away breeds ignorance...thanks for the reference
  - mwpolen 17y ago
    After further reflection I'm not sure my belief is wrong. The match between GM Roman Dzindzichashvili and Rybka has finished with a somewhat surprising (at least to me) score of 4-4. http://www.chessville.com/Wall/DzindziRybka.htm http://www.chessville.com/Wall/DzindziRybka.htm
    - jibiki 17y ago
      From the article: "the odds were changed to - Roman gets White every game, the computer offers up a different pawn each game." So the computer gave Dzindzi an enormous handicap.
      - mwpolen 17y ago
        I failed to make my point...sorry. A human rated 3200 would win more than 4 games even given the restrictions against a GM rated ~2550. Ratings are not as as transferrable as one would think, especially when a computer is involved.
murr 17y ago
I agree with most of this, but one should not overestimate the impact of general hardware progress since 1997. Each extra ply takes an order of magnitude more computation, and the state of the art in endgame tablebases has "only" progressed from 5 pieces (e.g. KBB vs. KN) to six pieces.

bitdiddle 17y ago

I believe this is correct. I worked at T J Watson during this famous match and if I recall the consensus in the halls was that these CMU grads had some interesting hardware hacks but the program was essentially the classic heuristic search with evaluation function. I think computers also have been used to work out some end game solutions

mwpolen 17y ago

I do not think this is the case. If you follow chess and the matches where a top GM plays a computer you will find most of the time it is a draw. There was an article on chessbase many years ago that showed that chess program rating had stopped growing as fast and they were leveling out just as player ratings level out. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1292 http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1292

eru 17y ago
Perhaps we are coming closer to optimal play?
ca98am79 17y ago
This is definitely the case. Check out Rybka - it has been rated 3200+. No human being comes close.
- mwpolen 17y ago
  Time away breeds ignorance...thanks for the reference
- mwpolen 17y ago
  After further reflection I'm not sure my belief is wrong. The match between GM Roman Dzindzichashvili and Rybka has finished with a somewhat surprising (at least to me) score of 4-4. http://www.chessville.com/Wall/DzindziRybka.htm http://www.chessville.com/Wall/DzindziRybka.htm
  - jibiki 17y ago
    From the article: "the odds were changed to - Roman gets White every game, the computer offers up a different pawn each game." So the computer gave Dzindzi an enormous handicap.
    - mwpolen 17y ago
      I failed to make my point...sorry. A human rated 3200 would win more than 4 games even given the restrictions against a GM rated ~2550. Ratings are not as as transferrable as one would think, especially when a computer is involved.

murr 17y ago

I agree with most of this, but one should not overestimate the impact of general hardware progress since 1997. Each extra ply takes an order of magnitude more computation, and the state of the art in endgame tablebases has "only" progressed from 5 pieces (e.g. KBB vs. KN) to six pieces.