Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(chessbase)   Deep Junior pulls even and ties tournament against Gary Kasparov, heard exclaiming "bite my shiny metal ass"   (chessbase.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4863 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2003 at 5:10 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2003-01-31 05:13:37 PM  
Lolz U LOST TO A COMP OMFG ROFLMAO!!11
 
2003-01-31 05:13:42 PM  
Cute headline....
 
2003-01-31 05:13:42 PM  
Go dad! Teach that Gary who's boss.
 
2003-01-31 05:14:07 PM  
Am I supposed to rub one out to THIS?

no really, do I?
 
2003-01-31 05:14:37 PM  
Go SkyNet!
 
2003-01-31 05:14:52 PM  
what you say?
 
2003-01-31 05:15:24 PM  
[image from chessbase.com too old to be available]

The Kobe burger looks nice.
 
2003-01-31 05:15:48 PM  
Well Phaeton, you could always rub one out to this... NSFW
 
2003-01-31 05:16:44 PM  
[image from users2.ev1.net too old to be available]
 
2003-01-31 05:18:46 PM  
Or there's always THIS classic:

[image from retrogames.co.uk too old to be available]

You could let the game take eight hours to make a move. It could use every evil scrap of its 4-bit brain to demolish you...
 
2003-01-31 05:21:22 PM  
I beat the computer on hard in Warcraft once.

I 4m teh g0su.
 
2003-01-31 05:22:44 PM  
yea! A futurama reference.
 
2003-01-31 05:23:28 PM  
Henchman
Is that like a 70s Wayne Gretzky on that computer game?

WTF???
 
2003-01-31 05:24:06 PM  
Am I supposed to rub one out to THIS?

can't put a shine on the ol' bishop with this one, eh?
 
2003-01-31 05:24:17 PM  
(future headline)
Deep Junior beats Kasperov in chess tournament; in celebration, Deep Junior makes Skynet go live, attacks Russia.
 
2003-01-31 05:26:10 PM  
[image from c64gg.com too old to be available]
 
2003-01-31 05:33:07 PM  
All your Queen belong to us!

sorry guys had to get that one out of the way.
 
2003-01-31 05:36:48 PM  
You know, I'm pretty good at chess. I have beat anyone I've played in the last several years. But I can't beat even the simplest computer chess games. People like Kasparov are scary.
 
2003-01-31 05:39:16 PM  
Whoever designed this chess program is a chess gm themselves (or close to it), right? If the programer was just a novice chess player and the program taught itself all of it's insane strats (particularly with regard to an unbeatable defense) then that would be something to lose some sleep over.
 
2003-01-31 05:41:03 PM  
Nothing beats BattleChess...
 
2003-01-31 05:41:35 PM  
ZipBeep: I'm not sure. He looks like Bob Ross's step-brother to me...
 
2003-01-31 05:44:28 PM  
Battlechess was great, but even better was the national lampoon chess game which came out when i had a 486, it worked like battlechess, but the pieces were digitized actors and the taking of one piece by another was usually really funny.
 
2003-01-31 05:46:38 PM  
I think it was called National Lampoon's Chess Maniac or something like that.
 
2003-01-31 05:47:56 PM  
I hope it reall di tell him to bite it's shinky metal ass. I used to work for the company that hosted Kasparov's website. He's a real Farkhead. He was always complaining about something and demanding credits to his bill. After about 6 or 7 months of this, our accountants realized that he had never paid a single dime for hosting his site (a 6 server GDC spread across 2 DC's, i.e. expensive). When the sales rep talked to his people, they refused to pay! So we shut the site down and told him we would not release the domain name back to him until he paid. What's really funny is that I left the company shortly after all this and had forgotten all about it. Just for grins I tried www.clubkasparov.com and it still looks down AND the company I used to work for is still listed as the name servers. I bet that jerk still owes them money...
 
2003-01-31 05:48:45 PM  
battle chess ruled.. i would sacrifice pawns just to see the king in action.
 
2003-01-31 05:50:22 PM  
I've been watching every game live. For some reason this fascinates the hell out of me.
 
2003-01-31 05:52:51 PM  
[image from princessmonkey.com too old to be available]
 
2003-01-31 06:07:17 PM  
Kaspy was hot-dogging it and stepped on his d1ck. It's pretty obvious that he was going to show everyone that you can play a wide-open game and still beat a computer (conventional wisdom says "keep it tight" and build up small long-term positional advantages). Only problem was Junior didn't cooperate.

You DON'T play a gambit like (g4) with a farkin' supercomputer. (You think you're gonna fool it or ruffle its feathers?) Junior doesn't care if the board doesn't look "pretty" and will make moves that set the bowels of purist churning -- like TAKING THE PAWN. Moreover, Kaspy later left another pawn exposed on the "h" file -- confident that Junior wouldn't take it, since most humans wouldn't want that file (leading to the king) to be opened. Junior didn't care. BAM!! Two pawns down for the Russkie.
 
2003-01-31 06:25:52 PM  
And when we find out who the champ is.... then what?
 
2003-01-31 06:29:42 PM  
Most computer programs have a dirty little secret: they lack strategy in the endgame. To beat a large number of computer programs out there, you simply have to get to the endgame with even material and a small positional advantage.

Of course, computers are just getting too damn fast for this to work anymore.
 
2003-01-31 06:32:49 PM  
i'm a total chess n00b. i utterly suck at the game. the only thing i know about it is how the pieces move and how to set up the board.

what i wanna know is... how much time & effort does it take to become really good? does it involve study with books and stuff? can playing against yourself be better than playing someone better than you? and does it take a lifetime of dedication to become a grandmaster?

also, i heard somewhere that there are 3 types of genius: mathematical, artistic, and chess. is this true? and is bobby fischer an example of this?

hoo boy. i sure sound like an annoying nagging dumbass. but if anyone could field any of those questions, that would be great. thanks in advance.

/stupid questions
 
2003-01-31 06:34:53 PM  
"Kasparov was indignant in the postgame press conference. He felt that he had completely dominated the computer in all three games, yet only had 1.5 points and a drawn match to show for his efforts. Now he has two rest days for his computer-plundered anusto recover from this devastating loss."
 
2003-01-31 06:39:27 PM  
[image from store1.yimg.com too old to be available]

I love Bender.
 
2003-01-31 06:43:50 PM  
I think Kasparov is going to have a meltdown if he loses the match.
 
2003-01-31 06:44:19 PM  
Heh, MorePeasPlease... "computer-plundered anus."
 
2003-01-31 06:49:18 PM  
These man vs. machine chess games are a hoax. "Deep Blue" was really Bobby Fischer. "Deep Junior" is really Boris Spassky. Kasparov does not know. Read More.
 
2003-01-31 07:03:57 PM  
Sorry, but Gary Kasparov could whip Bobby's ass all over the board.
 
2003-01-31 07:23:47 PM  
Macdaddy357: That is so ignorant. Deep Blue and Deep Junior work in almost the same way that Garry Kasparov does in terms of thinking ahead in the game. The computer looks at the configuration of the board, and then looks at all the possilbe moves it can make. The set of possible moves that would be most effective, it chooses. It's not about teaching the computer to play chess, it's about giving it a set of logical rules and enough processing power and memory to effectively look ahead so that it can make the right decisions. There is no reason to suspect that it is a hoax, programming this type of strategy is nothing new to computer science. In most games, this type of method is used so that the computer can be a more formidable opponent--the only difference is that with chess it requires more computation and therefore, a more powerful computer.
 
2003-01-31 07:28:06 PM  
TiggaBob:

I played chess for years myself, so I'll take a whack at 'splaining what little I know to you.

First, how long it takes to become good depends on your definition of 'good'. If you have a knack for the game, you could become a strong amateur in maybe a year. It'll take several years for you to play in chess tournaments.

To become a grandmaster, you not only have to be born with a genius IQ, but you have to start playing as a toddler, play countless thousands of games, and read really, really thick books with titles like Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Von Scheissekopf's Defense to the King's Gambit Accepted.

I tried playing against myself a couple of times, but it seemed pointless to me since I knew my Opponent's every move ;) However, I think that Bobby Fischer played against himself and it actually worked, but Bobby Fischer is an immortal, so the normal rules don't apply ;)

If you have a Renaissance Festival where you live, a usual feature (I think) is a chess booth with expert players who play for a small fee. You'll probably never beat them and win a t-shirt, but they'll definitely give you a challenge. Or, just get a good chess-playing program, but they play a little different than humans. (BTW, BattleChess--whoo, hoo!)

If you want to get into chess, I'd strongly recommend the movie Searching for Bobby Fischer--it portrays the world of chess addicts far better than any other movie out there. It's a biographical account of Josh Waitzkin, a chess prodigy. Don't miss it...

" i heard somewhere that there are 3 types of genius: mathematical, artistic, and chess. is this true?"

I'd disagree, but then I'd open myself up to being browbeaten into a quivering pulp by the nearest grandmaster ;)
 
2003-01-31 07:40:08 PM  
actually, Glumbert
Macdaddy357: That is so ignorant. Deep Blue and Deep Junior work in almost the same way that Garry Kasparov does in terms of thinking ahead in the game. The computer looks at the configuration of the board, and then looks at all the possilbe moves it can make. The set of possible moves that would be most effective, it chooses. It's not about teaching the computer to play chess, it's about giving it a set of logical rules and enough processing power and memory to effectively look ahead so that it can make the right decisions

actually, deep blue works like that. Junior works by analysing the board and selecting the best strategy. subtle difference.
 
2003-01-31 07:43:26 PM  
Alright at the risk of being totally dumb and clueless beyond belief

WHAT THE fark IS SKYNET
 
2003-01-31 07:44:03 PM  
Rhiannon - You can watch the games live? Is it on TV or is there a website? I have always wanted to watch a professional chess match.
 
2003-01-31 07:50:57 PM  
as an addendum, to TiggaBob question, playing against yourself is helpful for very basic moves and tactics. But really like was mentioned, even if you play as purely as you can, you still know what both sides are planning to do. It just wont work. Thankfully though, the internet has brought us closer. You can log on to yahoo or many other game sites and play chess for free all hours of the day. If you can log into fark, you can play.


Further, as much as it is painful to say, getting beat down by someone who is better than you (ideally someone who is not hugely better, but somewhat) is much more of a help than beating others who can barely put together a game. Losing to players helps you to learn what to avoid and what to try and do.

Like was mentioned, you can become a grandmaster depending on how well you play and how quickly you pick it up, but it does require many days of effort. For one thing, your rating only changes after internationally recognized rated games. You can play as much as you want with friends or online, but until you actually go out and win at a rated event, you will be sitting at 1200.

My advice for the novice is to try it online, and try it against a computer opponent. You will lose more often than not, but as in many areas, it isnt as important to win as to learn something from every game. Learn not to let yourself be forked or when to castle and when not to.


As for the programming, I seem to remember that the programming was basically just thousands and hundreds of thousands of games that have been played, both at the master and grandmaster level. The computer basically has a library of most every rated game played by the chess greats. Of course it also needs programming to decide which move is the best in a situation, and I don't know who did that.
 
2003-01-31 08:02:16 PM  
JohnnyontheSpot: It's on the web. You can get it
through the Wired mainpage or at worldchessrating.com

Macdaddy357: Yeah, and man didn't land on the moon.
 
2003-01-31 08:04:29 PM  
I programmed a checkers AI before -- Theqwertyone's got it down pretty well. You need to define the rules of the game, then start predicting each possible move (and from each of those, predict again, and again, and again, until either your time runs out or you find the absolute best move). Essentially you just create a whole crapload of board scenarios, then evaluate which one is best. Of course, there are a lot of board positions that are stored in libraries (like openings and closings) so the computer can decide very quickly what to do.

What distinguishes a lot of AIs are (1) the evaluation methods (for determining whether one board is "better" than another), (2) effective pruning, and (3) efficient use of the work you've already done. Pruning, of course, is being clever enough to not evaluate all of the possibilities behind stupid moves; once you realize that one move is a loser, don't persue the possibility of what would happen after that play. Effiecient coding will allow you to make use of already examined boards in subsequent turns -- saves a lot of processor time.

With chess there are so many possible board arrangements it's impossible (even still) for a computer to explore them all while staying within time requirements of chess. My checkers program could only see about 5 levels deep, but then I had a 30 second time limit (and this was back when Java was still *really* slow). I'd say the best way to code a chess AI is to code up a massively distributed system application (similar to SETI's screensaver) that evaluates all possible board situations and stores the optimal moves in one big-ass hash table. Sure, the computer would always play any given move the same way, but it would also play a guaranteed optimal move without having to think about it at all.

And for the love of Pete, Garry has two R's!
 
2003-01-31 08:06:23 PM  
Beer151: Skynet was the computer defense network in the Terminator series that went a tad nuts.
 
2003-01-31 08:54:16 PM  
And of course, chess AIs rely on chess being a two-person deterministic game of perfect information. I wonder if anybody's written a good Kriegspiel AI (Kriegspiel is a variation which requires two boards and a referee; basically, it's chess with fog of war!) or where randomness is involved. Randomness can be compensated for with computation of expected outcomes, but hidden information would mix things up considerably.
 
2003-01-31 09:11:36 PM  
I could go for a Kobe burger.

I don't think there is a true optimal move for the computer to choose. It can only choose based on how it values pieces and positions and the moves it has seen so far. The human may not use the same evaluation system or may deliberately trick the computer, make an error, etc. In other words, I think you need more than just brute force.
 
2003-01-31 09:24:18 PM  
With chess there are so many possible board arrangements it's impossible (even still) for a computer to explore them all while staying within time requirements of chess.

More like the time requirements of the universe.
 
2003-01-31 09:38:28 PM  
Excellent Futurama reference.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report