Althouse: "The last stunt like this was when another IBM supercomputer called Deep Blue beat Russian grandmaster Garry Kasparov at chess."

February 14, 2011

"The last stunt like this was when another IBM supercomputer called Deep Blue beat Russian grandmaster Garry Kasparov at chess."

"Has anyone talked about chess since then?"

95 comments:

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: Bad link; 2/14/11, 10:47 AM
Anonymous said...: How did IBM do in the computer business, by the way?

You can't even buy one of their "supercomputers."; 2/14/11, 10:55 AM
Scott M said...: I'm trying to get my 6-year-old interested right now. Not easy to compete with TV and her DS, but I can make a dental insurance seminar fun.

There's a game called All The Kings Men which is sort of a poor-man's chess, for lack of a better term. Instead of having to remember the rules for each piece, the board has arrows of different types in each square. The strategy is to get the right piece in the right squares to take other pieces. It's sort of a half-way point to chess and that's the route I'm going with her. I'm not the best player, but I'm doing something right. My oldest went on to be much better than me, to my knowledge, has never lost to an adult.; 2/14/11, 10:58 AM
rhhardin said...: Brute force is my favorite computer technique.

Kasparov got beat by it, eventually.

You can think of it as not enough good theory in chess, at the moment.

The thing about brute force is that there's no mystery. You can know everything about it. And so it's not sustainingly interesting to talk about.

Nobody talks about tic tac toe either, except tic-tac-toe playing chicken stories ("The chicken plays every day. I haven't played for years."); 2/14/11, 10:59 AM
Pastafarian said...: You know, I was looking for a local chess club just the other night. I haven't played in years, and I thought it might be good for my brain.

25 years ago, there was a great little chess club here in our small Ohio town, with about 15 members, that met every week. Now I can't find one even as far away as Bowling Green or Toledo.

I don't think it was Deep Blue that made chess less popular (if it is less popular), however. I think online gaming -- poker, WoW, and such just give people more options at this point. Easier options, that require less thought.; 2/14/11, 10:59 AM
Scott M said...: Easier options, that require less thought.

In the other end of that spectrum are video games that require truckloads more thought and planning than chess.; 2/14/11, 11:04 AM
Squints said...: Watson won't be regarded as truly sentient until it disparages Trebek's mom, gratuitously and with aplomb.; 2/14/11, 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/14/11, 11:07 AM
blake said...: Yeah, more thought and also more variety in mechanics, along different time scales, and with greater (or lesser) interaction. (That is, you basically play chess with exactly one other person. And if you play chess with a computer--aren't you playing a computer game at that point?)

Meanwhile, my understanding is that Deep Blue didn't play alone. There was a human there operating it, right?; 2/14/11, 11:08 AM
Scott M said...: An increase is not a cut.

Agreed. But this is about chess :); 2/14/11, 11:08 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/14/11, 11:10 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: Can't read the article, but two things:

Did anyone really talk about chess before then?

I find those racially and sexually diverse "I'm an IBMer" commercials extremely annoying. In reality they're just a bunch of nerdy white and Asian guys, aren't they? Who are they trying to fool?; 2/14/11, 11:14 AM
Pastafarian said...: Scott and Blake, chess is a very minimalist game; but it's that simplicity that makes it an elegant game, and allows the player to use calculation as well as judgment in his play.

If a game is much more complex, and you have to factor in physics and weather and game theory into it, then it requires more intuition and judgment than it does calculation. If I want to play a "game" like that, I'll just stay at work and play "keep the small business afloat".

Games like Call of Duty, for example; I don't know, but let's suppose that they have some ultimate goal, that you can win at them, and it's not just an outlet for murder and mayhem, as it appears to me. I don't think that Call of Duty would be a good substitute for chess, if I'm looking for some sort of mental exercise to keep me from muttering gibberish like that reporter.; 2/14/11, 11:18 AM
sakredkow said...: The reason chess clubs are hard to find now is because of availability of Internet chess.

The USA now has a very strong grandmaster, Hiraku Nakamura. Maybe interest in chess will pick up here if he can keep playing very strong chess against the world's strongest.

A few weeks ago he came in clear first in a supertournament in Wijk aan Zee, ahead of the current World Champion (Anand) a former World Champion (Kramnik) and the world's then rated number one (Carlsen).

Go Nakamura!!!!; 2/14/11, 11:21 AM
Original Mike said...: I've got my DVR set to record this. I'm rooting for the humans (Yeah, I'm specist. Sue me).; 2/14/11, 11:26 AM
Scott M said...: I don't think that Call of Duty would be a good substitute for chess

I would agree, excepting that first-person-shooters do have a definite start, goals, and a way to win. Nobody plays "deathmatch" type games anymore. Those are more what you're talking about, I think. Just random, twitchy, killfests. The more contemporary games, of which the last couple of Call Of Duty titles I would include, have two teams, capture points to attack and defend, and a definite way to win the game.

A better comparison to chess would be something like the Total War games. Grand strategy (all of Europe or Japan, for instance) combined with tactical realities (its better to defend from a hilltop, as an example). Basically, they are Risk with a ton more details. Economy, diplomacy, and, instead of rolling dice for battles, you zoom in to that territory and actually have to fight them out with units that have innate morale, exhaustion, weapon/gear quality, etc. Winning one of those games can be very rewarding given the amount of thought and skill that goes into it.

And, like chess, Total War games can be a forgone conclusion long before they are "over". Such is war.; 2/14/11, 11:28 AM
Pastafarian said...: phx, a few problems with internet chess:

a) I can't play without a board. I can't look at a 2D overhead view, or a 3D representation on a screen, and see the board.

b) So I have to set up a board to play; but most of the games available are speed chess, and this puts me at a disadvantage.

c) Some of the play is very, very bad.

d) I've had opponents just stop entering moves, for minutes at a time. Sometimes they won't return at all, and I'll win on time, but I have to sit there and wait to be sure, because sometimes they'll return after several minutes, and if I've abandoned the game, they'll win. (Which might be their gambit.)

e) When playing online, I've often suspected that my opponent is feeding my moves into a program like Chessmaster that's running at the same time, and letting that program come up with his moves. The opponent will often play like a computer.

It's a shame, really, that no one wants to play in person anymore.; 2/14/11, 11:32 AM
Pastafarian said...: I forgot one:

f) If I play at home, one of my daughters will come up and ask for my help in math during a game. This doesn't happen at a club. And multi-tasking is not only a weakness, it's what will cause me one day to start uttering gibberish.; 2/14/11, 11:36 AM
Crimso said...: "Easier options, that require less thought."

Never played Eve? Most people I know that have tried it find it too boring. They want explosions and such all the time. They completely miss the incredible intricacy of the various aspects of the game. You can get lost in it. That's when you ganked because you weren't doing regular direc scans.; 2/14/11, 11:37 AM
Scott M said...: That's when you ganked because you weren't doing regular direc scans.

You have to leave an alt without implants in a rookie ship hanging out at the gate and turn the volume up :)

Eve is chess on the grandest scale currently possible without actually killing actual people in an actual war.; 2/14/11, 11:40 AM
sakredkow said...: Pastafarian - I do agree it's a shame about disappearance of over-the-board play. My community actually has a pretty vibrant club, fortunately. Last year was the first time in several years I went to play rated OTB games. Not just old codgers like me but KIDS playing every Wednesday.
You know what it's like to face a 12-year old rising chess whiz with fear in your heart? Ouch.; 2/14/11, 11:41 AM
Pastafarian said...: Crimso and Scott, I'll look into these.

But having to abandon all I know about the Sicilian and the King's Indian and try to pick up on things like "gank" and "alt without implants" is really a very depressing prospect, to be honest.; 2/14/11, 11:44 AM
Fen said...: There's good online play. Game-something-or-other, I forget the name. They have Spades too.; 2/14/11, 11:44 AM
sakredkow said...: Chess is chess. Accept no substitutes.; 2/14/11, 11:45 AM
Dark Eden said...: I don't think it was Deep Blue that made chess less popular (if it is less popular), however. I think online gaming -- poker, WoW, and such just give people more options at this point. Easier options, that require less thought.
- - -

You have obviously never tried to organize a World of Warcraft 25 man raid. Its like chess as a team sport combined with herding cats through flaming hoops.; 2/14/11, 11:50 AM
J said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/14/11, 11:52 AM
Scott M said...: You have obviously never tried to organize a World of Warcraft 25 man raid. Its like chess as a team sport combined with herding cats through flaming hoops.

x10 if Leroy Jenkins is one of the 25.; 2/14/11, 11:53 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Popular interest in chess comes and goes. A good story -- or a great American player -- drives media attention.

I haven't played in a chess club in years. (Let's see, how old is my kid? Yeah, that many years.)

Wish I could drop in for a few hours once or twice a week.

It took me a while, Pasta, but I got the hang of the 2-D board and fast play, and for now, live online chess works for me.; 2/14/11, 11:55 AM
ErnieG said...: The link was bad, but would this be about IBM's Watson going on Jeopardy?

http://www.banktech.com/architecture-infrastructure/229218483; 2/14/11, 11:55 AM
Crimso said...: "You have to leave an alt without implants in a rookie ship hanging out at the gate and turn the volume up :)"

We live in a level 3 wormhole system. I like to sit about 35 km off the hole cloaked in a stealth bomber. Nasty surprise. One guy warped off when he saw me materialize and throw the bomb, but he warped directly to a moon where we had a POS. Popped him real fast. Good times.; 2/14/11, 12:15 PM
X said...: The last stunt like this was when Althouse went full-metal on the Howard Stern/Kathy Lee Gifford link.; 2/14/11, 12:18 PM
Scott M said...: Since SB's can't warp cloaked, we used to attack gate camps with mini-swarms of frigates with a dozen or so stealth bombers mixed in. The non-SB frigs would turn and warp out right away, but the bombers would just cloak and get into position. They would decloak as close as possible just as the mini-swarm warped back in with a couple of BS's as backup. Lots of fun. Takes patience to set up though.; 2/14/11, 12:22 PM
Palladian said...: I play chess every day, either online or on my phone or against myself with my physical board (which is the best way to play).

Through chess, one can become a master of anything.; 2/14/11, 12:48 PM
Trooper York said...: Fen said...
There's good online play. Game-something-or-other, I forget the name. They have Spades too

If Mort was awake he would say that was racist.; 2/14/11, 12:49 PM
Palladian said...: I cannot bear speed chess, however.; 2/14/11, 12:52 PM
Michael said...: PHX is correct. Chess is likely enjoying a boom that is reflected only in free game downloads and the sale of more sophisticated programs. I had an excellent version a few years ago on a Palm device but haven't found one for Blackberry that I must have.

You can do your own little Kasparov bit by setting a computer game to its highest and most sophisticated level and then get humiliated any time you feel like it.; 2/14/11, 1:00 PM
rhhardin said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/14/11, 1:04 PM
rhhardin said...: Foo, wrong thread, I'll repost it.; 2/14/11, 1:05 PM
Lucien said...: When contestants play Jeopardy! the clues are read and then a light gos on on the board (not visible to viewers) and the first contestant to press their button after that may respnd to the clue.

In the first round, you can figure that with three good contestants, all three will be able to correctly respond to almost all clues, so it is a race of reactions.

Any computer can always win that race, unless it is handicapped by some predetermined reaction time which is within normal human limits. If that handicap is too small, bet on Watson to win every race and respond to every clue correctly, building a huge lead. If the handicap is too big, advantage humans.

In the second round, really good contestants know the correct responses to most clues, when the light goes on, and can figure them out in time almost all the rest of the time, so they can push the button in the expectation that they will be able to correctly respond within the time alotted. Again, the reaction time handicap would seem to be the determining factor.

Final jeopardy only matters when nobody has twice as high a score as the other two contestants. At that point the contestants, especially the leading contestant, evaluate their confidence in responding correctly based on their familiarity with the announced subject for the final jeopardy clue and choose a strategy. The dominant strategy for a leading contestant with high confidence is to bet enough that he or she cannot lose if they respond correctly. The betting decision is made during a commercial break, so there is no pressing time constraint.

One wonders what strategy will be chosen by Watson. Of course, Watson will be able to know, based on score, the betting history of its oponents, and of every player ever to appear on Jeopardy!, which could be a significant advantage.

Of course, if Watson is not leading, and if the leading contestant responds correctly, then Watson's strategy is not material.; 2/14/11, 1:05 PM
Toad Trend said...: @Palladian

"Through chess, one can become a master of anything."

Do you think the Zero has ever played chess?

Maybe there is a special community-agitator version of chess.; 2/14/11, 1:10 PM
Scott M said...: Maybe there is a special community-agitator version of chess.

There is. It's called Stratego. In this game, the minorities (1's, 2's, and 3's) have all the power.; 2/14/11, 1:17 PM
Crimso said...: Eve is like how someone once described the Grateful Dead. You either love it or hate it. But the people that love it, really really love it.

I recall Kasparov "complaining" (if that's the right word) that Deep Blue was making moves that seemed downright human. He admitted to being a little unnerved by it.; 2/14/11, 1:21 PM
Joe said...: Properly written clues will stump the computer or make it answer wrong. The real challenge here are the writers, not the human contestants. Hopefully, the Jeopardy folks brought in some computational linguists who understand these things, but I doubt it.

(I'm also amused how people confuse answering trivia with intelligence.); 2/14/11, 1:30 PM
Unknown said...: You're looking at beating a machine that's engineered and programmed to do two things very well - search a database of facts for the right answer at a speed of how many teraflops/second, given the query has been properly formed (assuming it's a question where the answer has been input) and register that answer at the speed of an electric connection (as Lucien noted).

Yes, in this one, the odds are very heavily with the machine.

rhhardin said...

Brute force is my favorite computer technique.

Some become one with the code, some become the code, and some hammer it into submission.; 2/14/11, 1:43 PM
Matthew Noto said...: (I'm also amused how people confuse answering trivia with intelligence.)

Leave Obama and Biden out of this!

Actually, Watson is performing almost like a human brain could be expected to, and it's errors in answering Jeopardy-like questions are no different than those that might be made by the typical 6 yr-old or democratic party voter, i.e.
they're mostly errors made because Watson can't "think" contextually.

But Watson (or some other variant) eventually will, just not in the same way as you or I do. It's not quite Artificial Intelligence yet (it still needs to be programmed and re-programmed by people), but Watson is an important first step, and a technological leap.; 2/14/11, 1:48 PM
Palladian said...: "Do you think the Zero has ever played chess?"

No. If he was a chess-player, he wouldn't constantly screw things up. He's always two moves behind.; 2/14/11, 1:57 PM
blake said...: I don't think that Call of Duty would be a good substitute for chess, if I'm looking for some sort of mental exercise to keep me from muttering gibberish like that reporter.

Personally, I'm not suggesting anything be a substitute for chess. But even if we concede that chess is the greatest game ever and key to mastery of all things (despite the troubling histories of some chess champs), sometimes one wants to hunt for an emerald the size of a plover's egg or settle an island or fight the lawn zombies.

There is value in games that are Not Chess.; 2/14/11, 2:22 PM
Michael said...: Palladian: I believe your conclusion is correct. I wonder if Bush was a chess player. Somehow probably not. It would not be a bad question for a moderator to ask of candidates at political debates. And when they lie and say they do the moderator could follow up with "what is a trouser's leg." To the Republicans of course.; 2/14/11, 2:25 PM
Palladian said...: "Palladian: I believe your conclusion is correct. I wonder if Bush was a chess player. Somehow probably not."

No, but Karl Rove was, I bet. No one in the Obama administration plays chess. Like his pablum-polishing student-council-level speechwriter, Jon Favreau, they're all too busy playing beer pong or Grand Theft Auto.; 2/14/11, 3:33 PM
sakredkow said...: Obama is a chess supporter and according to Susan Polgar he and his wife both play.
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-chess-background.html

He definitely seems like the kind of person who would enjoy chess.; 2/14/11, 3:44 PM
Scott M said...: @Crimso

Email me through my profile. I'm looking for a new corp/All and w-space sounds like a good time. 73+ sp and Gall up to capitals.; 2/14/11, 3:46 PM
Kirby Olson said...: Chess needs something else to be at stake: the Cold War in the Fischer business, or artificial versus human intelligence, in the Kasparov case, for most to get interested. It's never on TV for any other reason. If it was, it would probably have people who watch it rather watch Poker, or billiards, but I doubt if it would ever get to Superbowl standards or sell billions of Doritos. Unless you had topless models playing it.; 2/14/11, 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: The only thing Obama doesn't like about chess is he figures it needs about 305 million more pawns.; 2/14/11, 4:33 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Chess develops concentration. I think it's an excellent game to teach children.; 2/14/11, 4:33 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Who wants to play thread chess?

How do we determine who goes first?; 2/14/11, 4:57 PM
Palladian said...: I'm white, so I go first!

Wait. That doesn't sound very good...

Ok, King's pawn to King 4.; 2/14/11, 5:24 PM
Peter Hoh said...: pawn to b6; 2/14/11, 5:32 PM
Palladian said...: Nf3; 2/14/11, 5:57 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Bb7; 2/14/11, 6:01 PM
Palladian said...: Bd3; 2/14/11, 6:08 PM
Peter Hoh said...: pawn to d5

I hope I don't make a notation error.; 2/14/11, 6:15 PM
Palladian said...: Pawn to e5; 2/14/11, 6:19 PM
Peter Hoh said...: pawn to e6; 2/14/11, 6:21 PM
Peter Hoh said...: I won't post every move, but if anyone wants to follow the game, it's here.; 2/14/11, 6:24 PM
Palladian said...: Bb5+; 2/14/11, 6:28 PM
Palladian said...: Peter, that's cool!; 2/14/11, 6:29 PM
AlanKH said...: I'll be impressed when a supercomputer can beat Ken Jennings at Trivial Pursuit.; 2/14/11, 6:33 PM
Peter Hoh said...: pawn to c6.

There's probably a better way to do it, but I'm using a finished game on chess.com. (I played a game, then went back to the first move and started making our moves.)

Then I do a screenshot and cut just the board. Save as a new file, and upload to flickr.

Convoluted, I'm sure, but it's how I do it.; 2/14/11, 6:36 PM
Peter Hoh said...: And now I need to leave for work. If anyone wants to take over my moves, feel free.

Just make it better than those youtube clips I've seen of audience participation, cable access chess out of NYC.; 2/14/11, 6:45 PM
Palladian said...: Be2

You could use something like this, which might be easier than cut & paste.; 2/14/11, 6:46 PM
Palladian said...: "If anyone wants to take over my moves, feel free."

Uh oh, it's becoming Palladian versus the world...; 2/14/11, 6:48 PM
Lincolntf said...: Interrupting a fun thread:
A should-be-well-known secret is that you (and anyone else who manages to not get kicked off for violating arcane etiquette rules) can play Scrabble with (actually, you figure out their Scrabble screennames and use the "observe" function to watch them play) the same people featured in "Word Wars", "Wordfreak" and the other Scrabble-oriented documentaries/books.
It's a website that adheres strictly to real tournament Scrabble standards and uses the legitimate rating formula.

here's the site address:
ISC.RO.Com

After you sign up/sign in, you'll quickly figure out how to play people of all abilities at your leisure. After 10 (?) official games you will have a rating that will help you determine who to play. The big factor is game length. Choose 20 mins+ to start off. Read the FAQ's about playing against the computer (again, at your own level).

Once you're in there, and have played the initial 10 games, "seek" the name "Lincolntf" and we'll play.

(The site is Internet Scarbble Club.); 2/14/11, 6:51 PM
Lincolntf said...: Yeah, I misspelled Scrabble.
The shame, it burns.; 2/14/11, 6:54 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Okay, Palladian. It's just me and you -- no outside help.

However, the play will be slow. I can't stay up late tonight. Already I've spent too much time reading Kasparov vs. the world.

Ba6; 2/14/11, 9:20 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Lincoln, sounds interesting. I'll have to give online Scrabble a try one of these days.; 2/14/11, 9:21 PM
bgates said...: The only thing Obama doesn't like about chess is he figures it needs about 305 million more pawns.

That, and sometimes White wins. He hates that.

He definitely seems like the kind of person who would enjoy chess.

Yes, he does seem like the kind of person who would get a lot of mileage out of telling people he enjoys chess.; 2/14/11, 9:26 PM
Palladian said...: Pawn to d3.

Going to be slow for me too, as I'm about to retire for the night.; 2/14/11, 9:44 PM
Peter Hoh said...: A day of work, followed by participation in democracy. I was part of the rabble that showed up for the public comment portion of tonight's school board meeting. That's 4 hours of my life I'm not getting back.

pawn d5-d4; 2/15/11, 11:46 PM
Palladian said...: c4; 2/16/11, 6:11 PM
Peter Hoh said...: dxc3

I'm partial to speed chess. I don't know that it relates to the thread about live performances, but maybe it does. I love the adrenalin rush -- the sense that one is just about out of control on a high wire -- and yet it's just a game. No money lost, no broken bones.

Sometimes, I make very stupid mistakes in speed chess. Sometimes, my opponent takes advantage of my error. Quite often, my opponent seems oblivious to a blunder I've just committed, and I escape without paying the price. That doesn't provide me with much pleasure, however.

Even worse -- noticing that my opponent has made a blunder. That's not how I want to win.; 2/16/11, 11:00 PM
Palladian said...: bxc3; 2/17/11, 1:13 AM
Palladian said...: It depends on my mood, but I usually don't like speed chess. Hell, I don't even like timing games at all.; 2/17/11, 1:14 AM
Peter Hoh said...: h6; 2/17/11, 8:06 AM
Palladian said...: d4; 2/18/11, 7:09 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Bxe2; 2/19/11, 11:28 PM
Palladian said...: Qxe2; 2/20/11, 2:34 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Ne7; 2/20/11, 10:00 PM
Palladian said...: O-O; 2/21/11, 12:37 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Nf5; 2/21/11, 11:31 AM
Palladian said...: a4; 2/21/11, 10:57 PM
Peter Hoh said...: c5; 2/24/11, 12:17 AM
Palladian said...: Rd1; 2/27/11, 2:04 AM
Peter Hoh said...: cxd4; 2/28/11, 12:57 AM
Peter Hoh said...: Is anyone still following this?; 3/4/11, 10:40 AM
Amanda said...: Chess is a sport meant to be practiced by 2 players. It’s one of the most popular sports in the world. More info: Alberto Chueca; 4/16/19, 11:02 PM