MikeB wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:51 pm
Why did IBM have to take the machine apart?
Because it was an overpowered potato. Imagine if the myth was over after people discovered it was badly coded and only performed well because of the hardware.
By my estimation Fruit 2.1 with 2005 hardware was enough to outmatch Deep Blue.
IBM's stock went up like 15%. They made billions. Bury deep blue and bank on what you got. Garry never quite realized they only wanted to game him. Maybe the Botvinnik ethic to support computer chess in Russian Chess players.
What came to light many years later, the move that threw Garry off his game was the result of a bug. It picked a move at random.
"...Murray Campbell, one of the three IBM computer scientists who designed Deep Blue, and Murray told him[Nate Silver - Author] that the machine was unable to select a move and simply picked one at random.
At the time, Deep Blue versus Kasparov was hailed as a seminal moment in the history of computer science — and lamented as a humiliating defeat for the human intellect. But it may have just been a lesson that as humans, we tend to blow things way out of proportion.
Many chess masters have long claimed that Kasparov was at a significant disadvantage during the match. Deep Blue's designers had the opportunity to tweak Deep Blue's programming between matches to adapt to Kasparov's style and strategy. They also had access to the full history of his previous public matches.
Kasparov had no similar record of Big Blue's performance. Because the machine had been heavily modified since he had last played it, he was essentially going in blind. That strange move was chalked up to these advantages.
The IBM team did tweak the algorithms between games, but part of what they were doing was fixing the bug that resulted in that unexpected move. The machine made a mistake, then they made sure it wouldn't do it again. The irony is that the move had messed with Kasporav's mind, and there was no one to fix this bug. ..."
adams161 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:02 pm
i was commenting to the same friend that started my reminisces on Deep Blue that that period late 90s was the dividing point in computer chess. In summer of 1988 i had a Fidelity Excellence chess board computer touted as 2000 USCF. One guy at an event i went to had the same thing. He was a 1700. said he played level 8, about a minute a move(i was just level one back then). But I had met Peter Yu at same venue, a young master 2 years older than me and that year captain of the UC Berkley Chess Club and his comment was he didn't bother to play computers. They were not good enough. He was a USCF master a bit over 2200 then. The general consensus by strong players in the 80s and 90s was more the computers are not good enough, but that started to change by the late 90s and Deep Blue was part of that turning point. Now in the 20 years since the general consensus is the opposite. It's that no human can beat a computer anymore.
Glad to hear Pulsar is getting some use. I kind of have a monopoly now on iPhone Android Crazyhouse apps. Well at least I provide levels so a range of players can use it
From '80s to 2005, computer chess improved by around 100 Elo each year (software+hardware).
Most of the ratings came from computer games and some has doubt that computer chess will reach IM, then GM than WChampion level but all the tests showed that computers also improved well against human (may be less than 100 Elo each year, around 60 Elo).
Around 2005 came Rybka and multiprocessors for the mass. 2 revolutions is the same time.
[d]4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 44
44. ... Rxd1 - it was an inconsequential move in the game, DB literally play this move at random , but it planted the seed of doubt in Kasparov's mind
[d]4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 44
44. ... Rxd1 - it was an inconsequential move in the game, DB literally play this move at random , but it planted the seed of doubt in Kasparov's mind
source: Man Vs. Machine: Challenging Human Supremacy at Chess By Karsten Müller, Jonathan Schaeffer
He felt, at the time, that this positional move smacked of human intervention. It didn't help that he was also informed by his team that evening that he missed a drawing chance at the end. Kasparov has indicated that against a human, he would have found it, but the course of the game left him trusting the computer's ability to convert and that it would not have left such a chance.
