• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Computer Program Can't Lose at Checkers

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Are you ready for this? Some guy spent 18 years making a computer checkers program that is unbeatable. Wow, that is what you call dedication.

After 18-and-a-half years and sifting through 500 billion billion (a five followed by 20 zeroes) checkers positions, Dr. Jonathan Schaeffer and colleagues have built a checkers-playing computer program that cannot be beaten. Completed in late April this year, the program, Chinook, may be played to a draw but will never be defeated.
Click to expand...
 
That seems like the most rational thing to do with the money wouldn't everyone agree?
 
Checkers is easy for a machine, try chess. Kasparov still unbeaten by a supercomputer playing chess (he has tied).... hell, I can't even beat my PDA at chess :(
 
Ockie said:
Checkers is easy for a machine, try chess. Kasparov still unbeaten by a supercomputer playing chess (he has tied).... hell, I can't even beat my PDA at chess :(
Click to expand...

I'd like a link to some evidence of this draw, seeing as how Blue won in game 6.
 
Nemesis999 said:
I'd like a link to some evidence of this draw, seeing as how Blue won in game 6.
Click to expand...

If you considered that a fair game. Lots of shady efforts by IBM were produced and were accused of rigging the match to promote IBM. But for your argument, a 4-1 ratio is still a win by far for any means, if you added both scores up from the rematches and including the shady IBM moves, you are looking at a 6.5 to a 5.5 ratio... Kasparov remaining on top.
 
GREETINGS PROFESSOR FALKEN

HELLO

A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

:D
 
Is this just a precursor to another article in a few months: "9-Year-Old Beats 'Unbeatable' Computer At Checkers.'?

:D
 
I'm questioning the "artificial intelligence" misnomer.
Now that it is complete, the program no longer needs heuristics—it has become a database of information that "knows" the best move to play in every situation of a game..
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like it's just an enormous database with every possible position in the game, along with a map of how to move in each position. That's not intelligence, it's an enormous array of precalculated information- IOW, a hard drive.

I'm more interested in the poker program they mentioned- let's see how it does next week. :)
 
mavalpha said:
I'm questioning the "artificial intelligence" misnomer.

It sounds to me like it's just an enormous database with every possible position in the game, along with a map of how to move in each position. That's not intelligence, it's an enormous array of precalculated information- IOW, a hard drive.

I'm more interested in the poker program they mentioned- let's see how it does next week. :)
Click to expand...

Well that is half of the intellect though, is just knowing the moves or every possible move your opponent can make. The next part that is hard is you doing a counter and trying to predict what he will do, etc, etc.
 
Ockie said:
If you consider that a valid game. So much shady crap went on there that wouldn't even be allowed in controlled tournament play.

Even for the sake of the argument, Kasparov still remained ahead of the super computer, even if you counted all his matches, he still comes out on top.
Click to expand...
Kasparov's bad play on the sixth move is somehow the fault of IBM? Secondly, you can't add up all the matches because the second iteration of Deep Blue was twice as fast as the first one. Thirdly, it's been over a decade since those games. If estimate using Moore's Law, a Deep Blue built nowadays would over 2^6 = 64 times more powerful than the second Deep Blue. I couldn't find any Kasparov versus machine articles since 2003; Deep Junior and X3D Fritz both tied him at that time.

I have followed Kasparov's career and find that he doesn't like to admit that he is worse than his opponent. He made the bad move against the second Deep Blue, and then he cried foul. He tied Fritz, but later went on to claim the he outplayed the computer.
 
Run windows update on the machine its running on. At some point it will lock up and reboot. VICTORY!!!
 
kevlinsky said:
Kasparov's bad play on the sixth move is somehow the fault of IBM? Secondly, you can't add up all the matches because the second iteration of Deep Blue was twice as fast as the first one. Thirdly, it's been over a decade since those games. If estimate using Moore's Law, a Deep Blue built nowadays would over 2^6 = 64 times more powerful than the second Deep Blue. I couldn't find any Kasparov versus machine articles since 2003; Deep Junior and X3D Fritz both tied him at that time.

I have followed Kasparov's career and find that he doesn't like to admit that he is worse than his opponent. He made the bad move against the second Deep Blue, and then he cried foul. He tied Fritz, but later went on to claim the he outplayed the computer.
Click to expand...

Umm.

IBM had a team of expert players assisting the machine in that game, so it wasn't exactly a single entity he was playing against. Normally, under previous rules, the opponents are allowed to see the game plays of their opponents, not this game. Kasparov was not allowed to see the history of plays of the supercomputer, however, the supercomputer had Kasparov's entire playing history logged on the system so it would have a distinct advantage. Also, IBM refused to allow Kasparov to the logs, which were allowed before... only a long time after did IBM produce the logs (who knows what they did with it). Kasparov also asked for a rematch with more monitoring on both camps, but IBM refused. IBM had their victory marketing campaign already planned out and the second Kasparov won, IBM released their marketing campaing... interesting coincidence huh? Interestingly enough, when IBM re-challenged Kasparov, he accepted, even knowing he could be defeated the next time... but IBM didn't, because they have a image that could be at stake.


And you call that fair, LMAO. Oh and for your comment that you can't count his record overall, well thats pretty lame, as a human can learn better than a supercomputer and can "learn" new strategy, whereas a computer doesn't have that level yet. So when you upgrade your little supercomputer, realize that the human opponent could have changed concepts and gained knowledge.
 
he developed a database of all possible checker moves (500 billion billion). chinook simply calculates all possible moves from that point and can ascertain the outcome, as each piece is moved it narrows the total number of moves. It just can't lose, though it can admittedly be tied. its just like tic tac toe has a finite number of possible moves, and with a database of all possible moves and outcomes the game could at best be tied.

to date it is the most complex game that has been "solved".... i'm sure chess is next
 
Ockie said:
If you consider that a valid game. So much shady crap went on there that wouldn't even be allowed in controlled tournament play.

Even for the sake of the argument, Kasparov still remained ahead of the super computer, even if you counted all his matches, he still comes out on top.
Click to expand...

That's it. Try to BS your way out of being wrong.

He lost. You're wrong.
 
Yeah, I'm putting this in 2nd place for my all-time list of "Biggest Wastes of A Budge", right behind the Supreme Court deciding that the tomato is a fruit. :rolleyes:
 
Also, FWIW, faster does not mean smarter. You are making it sound like every time the supercomputer is upgraded in terms of computing power it's all of a sudden smarter. Which isn't the case, software heavily depends on the development and so does the algorithms that the systems utilize. The only thing you are going to get with a faster system is a faster end result, a slower system can compute the same results with just a much longer wait.

Also, another thing to mention is that Kasparov is getting old, and as we all know, at some point, a human loses their edge, so comparing him to Moore's law vs a machine would be quite unfair. I believe there is a new chess champion at a much younger age, he might be more worthy of challenging vs a super computer.

You can count your single victory as a complete defeat, but I think the total number of wins vs losses speak for themselves.
 
theDreamer said:
GREETINGS PROFESSOR FALKEN

HELLO

A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

:D
Click to expand...

Hahaha! That makes me want to pull out my 5 1/4" floppy for some serious armageddon action.
 
kevlinsky said:
Kasparov's bad play on the sixth move is somehow the fault of IBM? Secondly, you can't add up all the matches because the second iteration of Deep Blue was twice as fast as the first one. Thirdly, it's been over a decade since those games. If estimate using Moore's Law, a Deep Blue built nowadays would over 2^6 = 64 times more powerful than the second Deep Blue. I couldn't find any Kasparov versus machine articles since 2003; Deep Junior and X3D Fritz both tied him at that time.

I have followed Kasparov's career and find that he doesn't like to admit that he is worse than his opponent. He made the bad move against the second Deep Blue, and then he cried foul. He tied Fritz, but later went on to claim the he outplayed the computer.
Click to expand...

That's probably because Kasparov quit to become an opposition figure against the Russian government.
 
ragedriven said:
he developed a database of all possible checker moves (500 billion billion). chinook simply calculates all possible moves from that point and can ascertain the outcome, as each piece is moved it narrows the total number of moves. It just can't lose, though it can admittedly be tied. its just like tic tac toe has a finite number of possible moves, and with a database of all possible moves and outcomes the game could at best be tied.

to date it is the most complex game that has been "solved".... i'm sure chess is next
Click to expand...

Do you understand how difficult it will be to solve chess? Not in our lifetime will chess be solved. You can start by looking at the Shannon number, which it is theorized to be a lower limit of 10^120. WAY bigger than just 5x10^20
 
Ockie said:
If you considered that a fair game. Lots of shady efforts by IBM were produced and were accused of rigging the match to promote IBM.
Click to expand...

Umm, if they "rigged" the computer to more easily win, then all they did was strengthen the computer program (which is their job, you know).

Normally, under previous rules, the opponents are allowed to see the game plays of their opponents, not this game. Kasparov was not allowed to see the history of plays of the supercomputer, however, the supercomputer had Kasparov's entire playing history logged on the system so it would have a distinct advantage.
Click to expand...

So, they gave the comptuer a photographic memory? How can you consider that cheating? The computer is not accessing previous move logs, it is creating previous move logs. The ability to do that is simply one of the advantages computers enjoy over humans.

Do you understand how difficult it will be to solve chess? Not in our lifetime will chess be solved. You can start by looking at the Shannon number, which it is theorized to be a lower limit of 10^120. WAY bigger than just 5x10^20
Click to expand...

And, to put that into prespective, there have only been 10^21 seconds since the big bang, and there are only 10^86 atoms in the universe. Until we can do an atomic-level simulation of the entire universe, chess will not be solved.
 
Ockie said:
Checkers is easy for a machine, try chess. Kasparov still unbeaten by a supercomputer playing chess (he has tied).... hell, I can't even beat my PDA at chess :(
Click to expand...

Did Kasparov lose even a single chess game against a computer? Ever? If so, then he was not 'unbeaten'.

Screw the "Best X out of Y" tournaments. A chess game is not broken up into sets like tennis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top