We’ve Made Our Match
By William Saletan
Sunday, May 13, 2007; Page B02
Ten years ago this week, a computer beat the world chess champion in a six-game match. Since then, human champs have played three more matches against machines, scoring two draws and a loss. Grandmasters are being crushed. The era of human dominance is over.
Chess was supposed to be a bastion of human ingenuity, an art machines would never conquer. Now they’re conquering it. The smarter they get, the more threatened we feel.
Don’t be afraid. We, too, are getting smarter, and computers are a big reason why. They’re not our enemies. They’re our offspring — our creations, helpers and challengers.
We certainly needed the challenge. Chess computers, in particular, have exposed our complacency. Grandmasters used to dismiss computers as calculators, unfit for elite competition. Our vanity was so blinding that in 1997, when world champion Garry Kasparov lost to a machine called Deep Blue, he implied that the computer had received human coaching during the match.
Computers kept winning, and we kept whining. In postgame press conferences, players swore that they’d been winning right up until the moment when, for unclear reasons, they lost. Five months ago, the current champ, Vladimir Kramnik, overlooked an instant checkmate by his artificial opponent, Deep Fritz. “I rechecked this variation many times and analyzed quite far ahead,” Kramnik protested. “It seemed to me I was winning.”
Kramnik’s blunder was no accident. It happened because of flaws in the human brain. We thought we were smarter than computers for two reasons. First, we could choose a goal and figure out how to get there, whereas computers had to start with the available moves and see where they led.
Here is the full story.
From David Shenk’s book “The Immortal Game: A History of Chess”:
“Some were quick to point out that the stunning achievement was limited to a mere board game. Deep Blue didn’t know how to stop at a red light, and couldn’t string two words together or offer anything else in the way of even simulated intelligence. Others didn’t think that even the chess win was so amazing. MIT linguist Noam Chomsky scoffed that a computer beating a grandmaster at chess was about as momentous “as the fact that a bulldozer can lift more than some weight lifter.” It was simply another case in the long history of technology, he argued, of humans inventing machines that could perform highly specialized tasks with great efficiency. Specialization did not intelligence make.”
The whole “computers-vs-chessplayers” debate is among the most moronic, ridiculous, irrelevant wastes of time ever. A rocket-propelled pitching machine could be placed on the mound at Yankee Stadium and strike out every baseball player who ever lived. Does that mean baseball has been “solved”? OF COURSE NOT! Why? Chess is for humans playing against other humans…not machines! Good grief. Stop this nonsense.
computers all the time are cheating, fide rules
“computers all the time are cheating, fide rules”
LOL.
It is interesting that it was mentioned that computer chess has actually helped humans to become stronger players also. I to think this is true. I find it much harder to achieve a higher USCF rating nowadays, back a decade or two ago I think it would have been easier to get a higher USCF. I attribute this to the new strong computer programs which players use to help with openings and also to help with analyzing their games afterwards. Back in the times before computer chess it was very hard to be able to learn so quick from your mistakes. The only way would have been to have a stronger player to help you analyze your games which costs $
This chess writer has my vote on subject matter selection and communicating a highly technical matter in terms people can quickly understand.
I got a lot out of reading this analysis, and I would hope he or someone else can take this to the next level. We need more of this type of discussion.
“Five months ago, the current champ, Vladimir Kramnik, overlooked an instant checkmate by his artificial opponent, Deep Fritz. “I rechecked this variation many times and analyzed quite far ahead,” Kramnik protested. “It seemed to me I was winning.””
How he is not ashamed to say such idiotic statement?
He overlooked one of the most fundamental things in chess :MATE in ONE .
With very few pieces left on the board!