|
On October 05 2009 18:33 Hinanawi wrote: IBM pretty obviously and shamefully cheated by subbing in human moves to counter Kasparov's anti-computer strategy when they noticed it. After the match, Kasparov wanted to see the logs for the match to see how the computer made what he rightfully considered a decision that was made by humans in response to what he was doing, but IBM refused and immediately disassembled Deep Blue so that the evidence was destroyed.
Anyway, chess will eventually be 'solved'. Did you know that checkers was 'solved' a couple years ago? It's true - there is now an algorithm computers can run to play checkers from start to finish, regardless of what your opponent does, and never lose. If you play masterfully too, it'll be a draw, but the computer will never, ever lose.
Chess is several magnitudes of moves deeper than checkers, but it's only a matter of time. Probably 50 years or so from now, chess will be a solved game too.
Yeah I was surprised checkers took so long to be solved. Chess, though, is probably going to take a lot more than 50 years to solve. More like 100.
|
On October 05 2009 19:37 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 18:33 Hinanawi wrote: IBM pretty obviously and shamefully cheated by subbing in human moves to counter Kasparov's anti-computer strategy when they noticed it. After the match, Kasparov wanted to see the logs for the match to see how the computer made what he rightfully considered a decision that was made by humans in response to what he was doing, but IBM refused and immediately disassembled Deep Blue so that the evidence was destroyed.
Anyway, chess will eventually be 'solved'. Did you know that checkers was 'solved' a couple years ago? It's true - there is now an algorithm computers can run to play checkers from start to finish, regardless of what your opponent does, and never lose. If you play masterfully too, it'll be a draw, but the computer will never, ever lose.
Chess is several magnitudes of moves deeper than checkers, but it's only a matter of time. Probably 50 years or so from now, chess will be a solved game too. Yeah I was surprised checkers took so long to be solved. Chess, though, is probably going to take a lot more than 50 years to solve. More like 100.
Go might take a million years xD
Or untill the quantum computer eh
|
Chess requires more skill than SC
|
On October 05 2009 10:17 ssj114 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game. Sorry, I don't quite understand what you are writing about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)EDIT: I think perhaps you mis-interpreted my post? But I fail to understand where I mentioned that there was ONLY one game vs Deep Blue. All I mentioned was that Kasparov lost a match to Deep Blue. A match consists of games. You are best aren't you LOL.
What don't you understand? You wrote your previous post as if DB's win was a fluke. A lucky game, when in fact there were a LOT of games. The point still stands that a machine that CAN beat a Super-GM was created. Even getting to a draw 3 times in a row is enough to prove that it would eventually be able to win vs a human, since a human is more likely to make an error than something that can calculate one billion moves in advance.
Also, as others have pointed out, please learn to post. Trolling with things like "You are the best" and "LOL" is juvenile. It's not my fault that you can't express your ideas in a way that is easy to understand.
|
|
On October 05 2009 09:27 ssj114 wrote: @jfazz: really well written, and thanks for that. I agree that Starcraft is more of a sport than Chess is. On the other hand, Chess is more of a science than Starcraft is.
@Wr3k: You may find Chess boring, but I bet Kasparov himself finds Starcraft boring too LOL. I bet every single one of us here know at least 10 people (that they can name instantly) that find Starcraft boring etc.
People don't find starcraft boring, they are just unworldly.
|
And when shall we see an AI in an RTS game that can stand up to top players?
|
On October 04 2009 04:14 Klive5ive wrote: Kasparov is one of the greatest geniuses of the 21st century. Jaedong... is a Starcraft player. Let's not lose too much perspective here please.
Thirded.
|
some of you people are really up tight.
|
And when shall we see an AI in an RTS game that can stand up to top players? When RTS games become worth enough in the grand scheme of things to warrant someone sitting down and programming one.
So, never.
|
On October 05 2009 22:53 JohannesH wrote: And when shall we see an AI in an RTS game that can stand up to top players? When people actually give a shit about RTS games to the extent of Chess.
|
Awesome post. Thank you, sir!
|
United States20661 Posts
|
Kasparov is on the top longer than Jaedong lives. How can you even compare them to each other?
Edit: The closest counterpart of Kasparov in SC would be NaDa I think.
|
|
|
|