Kasparov on Embracing AI

[MikeGL]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/2 ... overlords/


Looks like even ex world champ is using Stockfish or its derivatives/clones.

Quote from the article:

These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue

.

[Vinvin]

Thanks for the article !
There's a typo "It was capable of calculating two million positions a second" -> DeepBlue was able to compute 200 million pos/sec.

[mehmet karaman]

These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue

Is Kasparov joking.
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Ryka 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)

[Ozymandias]

These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue

Is Kasparov joking.
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Rya 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)

Sadly, he's probably not joking. That's just ignorance talking. And this guy charged Carlsen a million bucks for some classes, jeez.

[Uri Blass]

These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue

Is Kasparov joking.
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Ryka 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)

1)There is no contradictions between the claims
2)We do not know if you are correct and we cannot test it because deep blue is dead.
The only way to test is by playing games.

[rcmaddox]

These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue

Is Kasparov joking.
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Ryka 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)

Isn't that what he said - that free programs are better?

[Robert Pope]

These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue

Is Kasparov joking.
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Ryka 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)

Isn't that what he said - that free programs are better?

He said that today they are. Mehmet is claiming that was true 10 years ago.

[MonteCarlo]

Yes, but the point is that nothing about that is a joke or incorrect from Kasparov.

Saying "These days free chess-playing programs is (sic) better at chess than Deep Blue" does NOT imply that they only recently became better.

When I talk to people who only really know about computer chess from all the publicity around Deep Blue, I often say something similar, along the lines of "Modern engines running on a normal desktop are much stronger than Deep Blue."

There's no implication in there about when other engines passed Deep Blue; it's just a matter of fact statement about today's engines relative to Deep Blue. The engines from the intervening years aren't mentioned

It would be like my saying in a conversation about the middle ages "Today's infant mortality rates are much, much lower than they were in the middle ages." and getting a reply "You must be joking! Infant mortality rates were lower than that long ago!"

All a bit silly

It is true both that today's engines are stronger than Deep Blue and that engines were stronger than Deep Blue some time ago (obviously there's not really direct evidence, i.e., matches, to show this, but the indirect evidence is pretty overwhelming).

As has already been pointed out, there is no contradiction between those two claims.

[MikeB]

+1 Jacob you are so right. It's funny how often people often add words to what they read or heard and then say the statement is false. In fact my conversations with my brother are like that almost every day.

[Ozymandias]

Yes, but the point is that nothing about that is a joke or incorrect from Kasparov.

Saying "These days free chess-playing programs is (sic) better at chess than Deep Blue" does NOT imply that they only recently became better.

When I talk to people who only really know about computer chess from all the publicity around Deep Blue, I often say something similar, along the lines of "Modern engines running on a normal desktop are much stronger than Deep Blue."

There's no implication in there about when other engines passed Deep Blue; it's just a matter of fact statement about today's engines relative to Deep Blue. The engines from the intervening years aren't mentioned

It would be like my saying in a conversation about the middle ages "Today's infant mortality rates are much, much lower than they were in the middle ages." and getting a reply "You must be joking! Infant mortality rates were lower than that long ago!"

All a bit silly

It is true both that today's engines are stronger than Deep Blue and that engines were stronger than Deep Blue some time ago (obviously there's not really direct evidence, i.e., matches, to show this, but the indirect evidence is pretty overwhelming).

As has already been pointed out, there is no contradiction between those two claims.

These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue, he said, and that’s indicative of progress in computer science and engineering.

All this is written in the present tense, as if it were a new development, Best case scenario, something's been lost in translation.