What is Watson?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Terry McCracken
Posts: 15844
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: What is Watson?

Post by Terry McCracken » Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:15 am

parrish wrote:I can't believe Jeopardy! didn't have a category about computers with A.I. (fictional or non) with answers from movies like War Games, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Terminator, Star Trek, etc.
I can.... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Terry McCracken

User avatar
gaard
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:13 am
Location: Flint, Michigan
Full name: Martin Wyngaarden

Re: What is Watson?

Post by gaard » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:25 am

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a ... son/71584/

Kasparov on IBM's new "toy".


http://blog.reddit.com/2011/02/ibm-wats ... -your.html

The research team finally answers reddit's questions.

rbarreira
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:48 pm

Re: What is Watson?

Post by rbarreira » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:34 am

Garry Kasparov wrote:(...) chess computers. They play fantastically well in maybe 90% of positions, but there is a selection of positions they do not understand at all. Worse, by definition they do not understand what they do not understand and so cannot avoid them.
It seems Kasparov still hasn't given up the idea that humans are superior to computers at chess.

User avatar
Leto
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Dune

Re: What is Watson?

Post by Leto » Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:11 pm

rbarreira wrote:
Garry Kasparov wrote:(...) chess computers. They play fantastically well in maybe 90% of positions, but there is a selection of positions they do not understand at all. Worse, by definition they do not understand what they do not understand and so cannot avoid them.
It seems Kasparov still hasn't given up the idea that humans are superior to computers at chess.
The statement you quoted doesn't support that claim, it simply says chess computers don't do well in a selection of positions. Humans probably play fantastically in 10% of positions.

rbarreira
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:48 pm

Re: What is Watson?

Post by rbarreira » Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:39 pm

Leto wrote:
rbarreira wrote:
Garry Kasparov wrote:(...) chess computers. They play fantastically well in maybe 90% of positions, but there is a selection of positions they do not understand at all. Worse, by definition they do not understand what they do not understand and so cannot avoid them.
It seems Kasparov still hasn't given up the idea that humans are superior to computers at chess.
The statement you quoted doesn't support that claim, it simply says chess computers don't do well in a selection of positions. Humans probably play fantastically in 10% of positions.
But he also says that computers can't avoid those positions they can't play in. Which immediately implies that humans could win by tricking computers into those unavoidable positions they don't play well, according to Kasparov's assumptions.

Dirt
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Irvine, CA, USA

Re: What is Watson?

Post by Dirt » Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:45 pm

karger wrote:This was not a fair game whatsoever .
Yeah, the computer has a faster reaction time. How are you going to fix that?

In any case, just getting to the point that the reaction times mattered was quite an accomplishment. Congratulations to IBM.

JManion
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:53 am

Re: What is Watson?

Post by JManion » Sat Feb 26, 2011 3:56 am

Dirt wrote:
karger wrote:This was not a fair game whatsoever .
Yeah, the computer has a faster reaction time. How are you going to fix that?

In any case, just getting to the point that the reaction times mattered was quite an accomplishment. Congratulations to IBM.
Unplug the computer, that usually kills its reaction time.

Terry McCracken
Posts: 15844
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: What is Watson?

Post by Terry McCracken » Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:38 am

JManion wrote:
Dirt wrote:
karger wrote:This was not a fair game whatsoever .
Yeah, the computer has a faster reaction time. How are you going to fix that?

In any case, just getting to the point that the reaction times mattered was quite an accomplishment. Congratulations to IBM.
Unplug the computer, that usually kills its reaction time.
In 40 years you may find that old trick rather hard to pull... :wink:

We now know can build a machine that can play chess and carry a coherent converstion.

HAL in 2051? Who knows? :o
Terry McCracken

rodolfoleoni
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:16 pm

Re: This is Watson?

Post by rodolfoleoni » Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:36 am

Dann Corbit wrote: ....................

Position learning is 100% effective if you hit the same position again (but this has a surprisingly low probability). Suppose (for instance) that you are playing a chess game and encounter this position:
[d]2r3k1/4ppb1/2P5/4P2p/2R3p1/1p6/1B4PP/5K2 w - -
Your chess engine makes a bad move and writes out a record that stores the correct value after the opponent's move. The odds that you are going to play this move again are basically zero, unless it is near the origin (in which case it is probably a book move).

......................

I think that there is a long way to go before computers utilize chess statistics properly in learning and move selection. It is actually something that I am actively working on.
I don't fully agree about low probability of a learned position to be hit in search. Let us suppose that the learning engine runs a special book where it always plays the same opening lines... E.g. always english as white, always Caro-kann, Nimzoindian as black. Let us suppose there's only one move for learning engine in that book, while it includes all possible opponent reply. That book would consist of few hundreds variations. The engine would learn the related middlegame position fast enough.

I built a book like that some years ago, and it showed to be good for position learning. The limit of that book was that I'm not a too strong player (about 2000 ELO) so it's not a high quality book, but I guess if a master rated player would do a similar work it could help learning much better.

There's a new feature of the Baron 3.X which shows to be effective with learning. It's called "deeplearn" and it consists of building a tree of learned positions from a root position (which can be the position the engine goes out of book). I had no much time to test it, but it seems great. Richard (Pijl) told me he has some new interesting ideas about it for Baron 4.0 (work in progress).
Rodolfo (The Baron Team)

rodolfoleoni
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:16 pm

Re: This is Watson?

Post by rodolfoleoni » Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:37 am

Dann Corbit wrote: ....................

Position learning is 100% effective if you hit the same position again (but this has a surprisingly low probability). Suppose (for instance) that you are playing a chess game and encounter this position:
[d]2r3k1/4ppb1/2P5/4P2p/2R3p1/1p6/1B4PP/5K2 w - -
Your chess engine makes a bad move and writes out a record that stores the correct value after the opponent's move. The odds that you are going to play this move again are basically zero, unless it is near the origin (in which case it is probably a book move).

......................

I think that there is a long way to go before computers utilize chess statistics properly in learning and move selection. It is actually something that I am actively working on.
I don't fully agree about low probability of a learned position to be hit in search. Let us suppose that the learning engine runs a special book where it always plays the same opening lines... E.g. always english as white, always Caro-kann, Nimzoindian as black. Let us suppose there's only one move for learning engine in that book, while it includes all possible opponent reply. That book would consist of few hundreds variations. The engine would learn the related middlegame position fast enough.

I built a book like that some years ago, and it showed to be good for position learning. The limit of that book was that I'm not a too strong player (about 2000 ELO) so it's not a high quality book, but I guess if a master rated player would do a similar work it could help learning much better.

There's a new feature of the Baron 3.X which shows to be effective with learning. It's called "deeplearn" and it consists of building a tree of learned positions from a root position (which can be the position the engine goes out of book). I had no much time to test it, but it seems great. Richard (Pijl) told me he has some new interesting ideas about it for Baron 4.0 (work in progress).
Rodolfo (The Baron Team)

Post Reply