• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Do you think: Deep Blue (2014) vs. Human player

N

Noo

Senior member
With today's computing power, do you think a human would have a chance competing against a computer in chess?
 
I highly doubt it, the computer can think of every possible permutation for every game and move possible. A human can only do so much, and I don't think we can stand up to that kind of raw computing power.
 
A human would only be able to win if there was a programming error. Even if there was one, I doubt a human would even stand a chance; it would be purely luck in choosing a specific series of actions that the program failed to account for properly.
 
effowe said:
I highly doubt it, the computer can think of every possible permutation for every game and move possible. A human can only do so much, and I don't think we can stand up to that kind of raw computing power.
Click to expand...
They can't come up with every solution off the bat, but not all of them make sense so you can prune them out.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess#Mathematics_and_computers
The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) held the first major chess tournament for computers, the North American Computer Chess Championship, in September 1970. CHESS 3.0, a chess program from Northwestern University, won the championship. Nowadays, chess programs compete in the World Computer Chess Championship, held annually since 1974. At first considered only a curiosity, the best chess playing programs, for example Rybka, have become extremely strong. In 1997, a computer won a chess match against a reigning World Champion for the first time: IBM's Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov 3½–2½ (it scored two wins, one loss, and three draws).[105][106] In 2009, a mobile phone won a category 6 tournament with a performance rating 2898: chess engine Hiarcs 13 running on the mobile phone HTC Touch HD won the Copa Mercosur tournament with nine wins and one draw.[107] The best chess programs are now able to beat the strongest human players.
Click to expand...

You tell me.
 
Computers have been able to beat chessmasters for years. What they're doing now is having the different AI programs compete with each other.
 
I think I could have it beaten in garden chess, especially the walking across to the board to move my piece part.
 
Chess is a completely deterministic game and the "algorithm" for winning at it is a straight-up min-max search through the tree of possible game positions. No human can possibly beat a computer that can search ahead through a few billion moves.
 
Markbnj said:
Chess is a completely deterministic game and the "algorithm" for winning at it is a straight-up min-max search through the tree of possible game positions. No human can possibly beat a computer that can search ahead through a few billion moves.
Click to expand...

How did kospRov beat it in the 60s?
 
"deep blue, your purpose is to beat the best chess player. YOU are the best chess player, therefore you must destroy yourself."

if that doesn't work, then try seduction.
 
NikolaeVarius said:
Algorithms weren't advanced enough yet and computer wasn't fast enough.
Click to expand...

This. The search problem is a really, really big one, and it has to be done fast enough to play the game with reasonable times for considering moves. The change in computer power and the ability to do deep searches has obviously improved by many orders of magnitude since then.
 
One of the big problems is that the grand masters can't look at a history of Deep Blues games.

They want a version of Deep Blue that isn't modified at all do 50 matches against grand masters. Then take one of the grand master and have them play against Deep Blue after they had time to study the matches.
 
effowe said:
I highly doubt it, the computer can think of every possible permutation for every game and move possible. A human can only do so much, and I don't think we can stand up to that kind of raw computing power.
Click to expand...
That implies that chess has been "solved." That is, every possible move is known, such that it is a tree - for every player's move, there's a move for the computer that guarantees a win. Actually, that's not even known - it may be that a "perfect" game played by both sides will always lead to a draw, or a perfect game always leads to the first player winning, or the first player losing.
 
It was over when Deep Blue beat Kasparov in the late 90s. Since then the computers get stronger and faster every year and the humans have not kept pace. There will never again be a human that can outplay the top tier computer programs.
 
effowe said:
I highly doubt it, the computer can think of every possible permutation for every game and move possible. A human can only do so much, and I don't think we can stand up to that kind of raw computing power.
Click to expand...

LOL.

There are MANY MORE combinations, like orders of magnitude more, in chess than atoms in known universe.

To compute all of them is just a brute force calculation. Human brain/strategy does not work like that. Especially while doing chess.

There are several computational problems that computers can't touch unless we get quantum ones, and this is not given.

Traveling salesman, have you heard of it?

Meteorology, fluid dynamics problems will kill any known computer quickly.

I find your answer pitiful.
 
That's the thing ... Chess computer cannot just do brute force tree traversals and the exploration of all paths to some advantageous position. There is still a great deal of heuristics involved, otherwise the computer will run out of time. The faster processors and bigger memory spaces of today, however, make the number of positions and paths that can be explored much greater than before, so they're better at it and they will continue to get better.
 
bigi said:
LOL.

There are MANY MORE combinations, like orders of magnitude more, in chess than atoms in known universe.

To compute all of them is just a brute force calculation. Human brain/strategy does not work like that. Especially while doing chess.

There are several computational problems that computers can't touch unless we get quantum ones, and this is not given.

Traveling salesman, have you heard of it?

Meteorology, fluid dynamics problems will kill any known computer quickly.

I find your answer pitiful.
Click to expand...

The computer obviously doesn't have to search all possible chess moves, just those that are possible from a given starting board state. Even that is too many moves to search to the end of the tree for every possibility. But then it doesn't have to. It just has to be able to search far enough ahead that its increased awareness of the possible outcomes trumps the human player's better judgement of individual board positions. I think that point was reached years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top