Kasparov versus Deep Thought documentary (part 4 of 4)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 гру 2024
- Nova episode on the Kasparov versus Deep Thought chess match in 1989. Deep Thought is the precursor to the IBM Deep Blue computer that beat Kasparov in 1997. Deep Blue is a precursor to the IBM DeepQA Watson computer to play in the gameshow Jeopardy! next month.
People featured:
GM Gary Kasparov
GM Robert Byrne
Feng Hsiung Hsu
Murray Campbell
Ken Thompson
Most of the future predictions by the interviewees in 1991 about computer chess became true as of 2011 (20 years later).
"one day a machine a 3 year holds in his hand will be able to defeat anyone" this is one of the most insightful quotes
quote from Ken Thompson (of Unix fame) no less
amazingly acurate.
For thousands of years we survived without technology just fine. Many people think that we haven't caught up to the technology we've created. By making everything easier for ourselves through various technological advances, we've developed a lack of initiative, a certain complacency, and it's killing us.
4:30 "Something that a 3 yr old will hold in their hand will be the world champion, there is no doubt about that." -- Yep, I guess that man was right, we probably reached that point right now. A smartphone app is all it takes, we've lost the battle.
Time for robots to take on the next battle, beat us at something else :D
"Something that a 3-year-old will hold in their hand, will beat the World Champion". Wonderful prediction, quite possible in the present.
Absolutely the truth now.
I commend Kasparov for not backing down to any of these challenges w/computers - actually welcoming them and kicking their butt for the most part. Even though computers might be almost impossible to beat nowadays, its still brute force and memory so not really sure that proves anything
He's a legend....
Fischer took on the weak greenblatt in 1978.
Kasparov. Took on Deep Thought, deep blue 96 and 97, deep junior 2003 and x 3d Fritz.
wrong
there is understanding
A most excellent upload. I miss the days of serious science documentaries on TV dearly. They appear to be gone forever. Many thanks.
All the chess / computer talk is fine and dandy, but the guy talking about preserving our planet and living with nature at about 6:30 mark was the most profound thing in this video. Boy did he hit the nail on the head and prove to be prophetic.
That's an appeal to nature. I hate "green", "eco-friendly" morons like you. We have no reason to keep the earth the way it is. The human mind is capable of creating an earth infinitely better than this through science and engineering to make life better for every human, and even animal, which exists.
@@johnydiala2492Allez faire une promenade en forêt plutôt que des conneries. La science enlève d'une main ce qu'elle apporte d'une autre. Ce n'est pas dans une ville, avec du bitume sous les pieds, que vous trouverez le sens de la vie.
Thanks for the uploads, this is an utterly brilliant documentary.
What a wonderful documentary!
Chess is an amazing conduit to test not only the human intellect but also the adaptability, experience and gut instinct that has ironically driven us to create machines ultimately to merely test ourselves against our own creations.
4:12 I remember reading an article at my high school library about a chess computer that will calculate a billion moves a second. That was in 1992. As far as I know they have never achieved that number, but it has gotten very large, large enough to be far better than the best human player. The strongest chess computers now are at the 3500 level. Kasparov in 1989 was at 2800. I think only using nanotechnology and quantum computers will they be able to reach a billion moves a second.
That was a beautiful documentary, especially considering the foreshadowing that they didn't realize they were generating.
Hans Berliner looks so disappointed at the outcome of the game, at 01:28.
8:56 !! Time flies!!
Also raise questions:
1 - Why they don't allow Gary to see the computer logs of Deep Blue? Deep Blue has all games played by Gary.
2 - Why they don't allow anybody on the room where Deep Blue it was?
3 - Why they dismantle Deep Blue after the match it was over? What they are hiding?
This is an interesting point. Chess was the computer's test of searching. It didn't play or think like a human. It used brute force. With Go, computers are too far from being able to search massive numbers of positions, so, if we are to solve the problem soon, we can't look into brute force, instead we have to go into neural networks and the like. A very exciting future for computer science indeed.
Intriguing doc, esp given Kasparov's subsequent political forays. He represented his species well vs. Deep Blue before getting whipped.
5:18 Imagine someone going back to that same day with an iPhone and Stockfish loaded on it
4c00h I wonder just how bad Deeper Blue would be beat by Stockfish?
2:45 Kasparov felt the GENKI-DAMA!!!
Half of Deep Thought now does online check-ins for BA at Heathrow.
@991woot119 : At most the *marketing* of the idea was inspired by this. However, natural language processing has been around for a long time and has no connection at all to chess playing computers. For example, there is no overlap in the algorithms whatsoever.
What a poetic view of the maters of Artificial Intelligence!!! Very Beautiful!
So many games played by Stockfish, yet it doesn't remember any of them. If it can do that, then it can finally prove that chess will always end in a draw. There have been many times Stockfish has thought it was one point ahead, but sure enough the game ends in a draw. That's because in most cases, being one point ahead isn't enough to win with perfect or near perfect end game tactics.
Like humans, Stockfish can see a stark contrast between good moves and bad moves. The number of good moves in a chess game are quite small. There is no reason there couldn't be a static program that simply has if else statements for all the good moves. In an ideal program, calculation ought to be reserved only for games with significant flaws. There are likely only tens of thousands of permutations of games with good moves which make the game end in a draw. If a player wins, it's because their opponent blundered. When an opponent blunders, Stockfish knows. If only there could be a database with what Stockfish considers good moves, then the game of chess would effectively shrink to a more manageable size. Then and only then can chess be solved.
When talking of computer chess, "engine" means one thing, a computer program that plays chess. For the past 10 years engines have become far more efficient and don't rely on pure brute force, the evaluation functions have evolved substantially. The point you make is obvious, yet the better processing, the stronger any engine will be. To beat even the best human chess players, however, you now need nothing but the strongest engine on a smart phone, huge computing power is not required anymore.
@991woot119 : The only commentary you will ever read or hear to that effect come from the marketing folks at IBM.
thanks so much for uploading
Man possesses an awesome ability to see patterns: the computer "discovers" these patterns by brute force. A human being would be ashamed to solve a problem by writing out thousands of pages of calculations to reach a conclusion that he could derive by knowing a formula and the logic behind the formula. Computers are designed, and are useful to us, because they have the ability to loop over a sequence of steps that would drive a human being insane with boredom. Computers enabled me to see this program on UA-cam and to ponder its content. Like any technology that man has created, computers will be used to do great good, and to inflict appalling horrors on mankind. That is inevitable. The "encouraging" observation by the one commentator was that computers will enable us to learn more about ourselves. But it is naive to think that when we finally understand ourselves that we won't be tempted to use that knowledge to enable a handful of people to utterly dominate, abuse and use large numbers of people. That too is inevitable. As UA-cam itself demonstrates, the ubiquity of computers has not done anything to enhance human dignity: people vomit up the most horrific, shameful commentary day and night on UA-cam (and other forums): we all know where this will lead, but in our quest to be all-powerful we merely demonstrate our powerlessness to stop it.
But the beauty of chess, whether it emerges from the master's mind, or from a machine, is still there. Because that beauty lies within the eye of the beholder.
I know it's quite old, but what the comment is focusing on is the hardware. The real threat is the software --i.e. the algorithm and the A.I. calculating the next moves.
what is the name of the music that is starting at 9:15
commotion , j espere que ca ira bien, 10janvier2020 (3mois)
Be funny if in the other room was Bobby Fischer making moves for the computer.
The people rooting against the computer must not be too happy now
Yeah, Allen Albright The great champion of the Welisejko Memorial in Fachasusetts 1985.
Then it seems you've validated my point. A "computer program that plays chess" is an AI-based system. Their efficiency is a result of better implementations of the algorithms used in the software. The fact that a set of better CPUs can execute more instructions in that engine in less time is important, but (IMO) not the key. I have several freely available AI engines and some are clearly stronger than others, yet they have exactly the same amount of processing power available (i.e. my PC/Phone).
5:03 The last match Kasparov played against a computer was a draw. It was against Deep Junior in 2004. Estimates according to their ratings show that Kasparov was first surpassed by computer when the program Hiarcs did so in 2005.
Kasparov has actually never lost a match against a computer. The Deep Blue match in 1997 was rigged with grandmasters that aided Deep Blue behind the scenes. Circumstantial evidence indicates that.
Do you know anything about engines? The top ones have the potential of beating the best human players, running on any device. Deep Thought and Deep Blue relied heavily on big hardware, but that's not the case anymore, engines can already be deadly with minimal computing power. The prediction was spot on, regardless of the fact that small devices have got really decent processors these days.
Santiago Méndez Who are you talking to? This documentary is ancient.
@blackoil911 You are forgetting that calculators are computers also. The approach computers use for chess is brute force calculation. There is no creativity in "their play". There is still a great amount of positional and strategical moves that computers easily "miss" or can't come up with.
I'm not saying that there won't be a computer capable of playing "real" chess in the future. I'm just saying that for some reason we are giving this matter more importance than what it deserves...
And now, so many years later....almost any decent chess software program like Komodo, Stockfish , Fritz or Shredder can beat all the Grandmasters on a simple laptop...
@blackoil911 You got me wrong, dude. This is an excellent documentary! I am a programmer and a decently good chess player, I know what's going on here. The only thing I'm saying is that tons of people get paranoid because a computer was able to beat a human in a chess game. Like I said, so far the computer approach to chess is mainly brute force calculation. I might actually worry a tiny bit more about 'Watson', the computer that learned to play Jeopardy, for that matter (also by IMB)!
you are a programmer!? well, i would love to learn to program but i just cannot see the end result...please enlighten me
It depends on what you mean by engines here. Assuming you mean A.I-based systems, then you're right, but these engines are software components. The reason the hardware needs to be powerful is to allow the software to evaluate a large-enough number of options in the least amount of time possible. That's still true today. However, if the software is not good, then no amount of H/W computing power will help. This is what I meant and I think you may've misunderstood.
I beat the chess computer on a 777 and I don't think I ever played again after that.
(drops mic)
"thousands of years we survived without technology"
Are you serious? Technology is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a preexisting solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function. The humans needed the use of Technology to survive in the savage ages...
great line on his part
@ace942 Or set the difficulty to a more appropriate level for your skill.
@websnarf they did make it
My dream is to meet gary (=
@sergeidave See at around 7:58. He's absolutely correct!
so basically, if they couldnt creat a computer capable of beating a human being until 1997, but we went to the moon in 1969?, something smells fishy here.
Chess against a modern chess computer is an exercise in futility. Pretty much most people have to cheat to have any kind of chance on winning.
Has the point been reached where a computer can see all permutations, and never lose?
+upgrader99 Not all permutations - that would be way too many. But their ratings are now way over 3000 ELO, whereas the strongest humans are in the 2800s. They may lose occasionally but this will become fewer and fewer.
+upgrader99
The new beta version of Stockfish has an estimated rating of 3500 according to the games its played so far .. if it played against anyone in this video it would win most of the time. A computer that has a hash database with all moves like you suggested would beat Stockfish 100% of the time. We're nowhere near having such a database - what's improved isn't so much the speed in which the programs work but their algorithms to make choices. You can load up any of the top chess engine's nowadays on an old Pentium 2 and it would still be too strong for a human to beat on an average day.
Single game, or the match?
defends kasparov
uses the insult "ugly"
@80sspirit4ever and you're say that computers have do or have
"Deep Blue is a precursor to the IBM DeepQA Watson computer to play in the gameshow Jeopardy! next month"
No. It's not.
A very interesting question is, why are we humans all worried about being beaten at chess by machines? Why is that?
Think about it for a second...
Didn't machines "beat" us at swimming? Think boats.
Didn't machines "beat" us at running? Think trains, cars, etc.
Didn't machines "beat" us at flying? Think planes.
Didn't machines "beat" us at calculating numbers? Think (duh...) calculators!
Why all the fuss about chess?
Machines will always be just a USEFUL TOOL.
Enormous energy supply lol
I think you're confusing machines with self-infliction and up-brining.
People have always had complacency. They used to be so easy to rule that all you needed was a small castle on a hill to keep them in line.
Toil and sweat, sure, but mentally, the majority have been and still are supremely complacent. Most people just do a task. Some, like me, look for the most efficient way to do it, while we do it. Machines help greatly. If they do enough of our work for us, we can take to the stars.
Pena q não há tradução para o português.
Chess sucks, you win thereby making your opponent a loser, OR you lose even worse. You feel bad either way. It's time to move on and create a better game, I like Rush Hour you're playing a puzzle and it challenges your creativity and logic without murdering a friend. There's got to be lots of games that challenge us intellectually without hurting others, hey in order to win we don't have to fuck another person. Is this so hard to understand?
i love u
a simple $1 pocket calculator can beat any human at what it does. Chess engines are just advanced calculators in a way.
Kasparov's ego is HUGE! Gotta give him some credit though, he's was he world champ for a reason.
Chess isn't the most complex board game in the world
Go is - and decades after kasparov was defeated by computer, no computer has yet defeated the best Go player in the world or even have come close to it
i have bad news...
@petelebu some humans train all their life and learn from others mistakes
@websnarf the idea of it was inspired off this
IBM also cheated by not giving any of the computer's games to Garry to study beforehand. Typical.
Stockfish 5 Chess Program DRAWS! Round 1 v The A.R.B Chess System
Stockfish 5 Chess Program DRAWS! Round 1 v The A.R.B Chess System
Yet.
1 DISLIKE hmmmmm
that must be deep thought
4:30
His disgusting arrogance? Rightfully his, he is one of the best Chess Grandmasters to ever live.
computers just killed chess forever
wow today's chess softwares are impossible to beat even the world champ
@koacoco but calculators can't play chess :( intelligence is what humans have
computers can't beat a 9Dan at Go on a 19x19
chess is a machine
The day we lose humanity. Now Skynet became possible reality, before just SCIFI. If you think that I am going too far better think again. BTW I love computers, I am on computer 24X7.
today the man kasparov bite soft a policeofficer. if it wasen't so sad it was funny. someone forced you by a hardgrip and you don't know to help your self than bite him. Gary's move was obvious,( might me, no fist) some HKD help's in sutch situation . but i wasen't there.