Kramnik to represent humanity against Deep Fritz

[Narz]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/24/europe/EU_GEN_Germany_Chess.php

Chess match pits world champion Kramnik against computer

The Associated PressPublished: November 24, 2006

BONN, Germany: The ancients told legends of heroes who fought against the gods. The industrial revolution produced the legend of John Henry, the steel-driving man who defeated a steam drill only to die in the effort. It is only natural that the computer age pits man against machine in the intellectual pursuit of chess.

Humanity's latest champion, Vladimir Kramnik of Russia, the undisputed world No. 1, faces off here against Deep Fritz, a commercially available program loaded onto a powerful personal computer, in a match for US$1 million (€780,000) that begins Friday.

Deep Fritz, a product of the German company ChessBase, is among the top few chess programs in the world. British international master David Levy, a pioneer in computer chess, doesn't believe there's much difference between the top programs in terms of their strength versus top grandmasters. He thinks Hydra, which runs on dedicated hardware, is even better.

Kramnik and an earlier version of Deep Fritz drew a match in Bahrain in 2002. Kramnik jumped out to a two-point lead only to lose two games, one by playing into the computer's strength and the other by a very human blunder.

In the most famous man-vs.-machine encounter, IBM's Deep Blue program shocked the world in 1997 by beating then-world champion Garry Kasparov. Rather than play a rematch, IBM canceled the Deep Blue project.

More recently, Kasparov drew a match against another program in 2003. He retired two years later. Last year, another British grandmaster, Michael Adams, one of the world's top 10 players, could only manage one draw in six games against Hydra.

Human beings excel in long-range strategic planning, but struggle tactically against a machine that calculates millions of moves every second. In addition, computers never get fatigued and humans do.

The rules for this match are designed to minimize the disadvantages of flesh and blood. Games are played every other day and Kramnik has the right to adjourn a game after six hours.

Human experts sharply disagree in their predictions. American grandmaster Yasser Seirawan expects Fritz to triumph.

On the other hand, Australian grandmaster Ian Rogers rates Kramnik "a slight favorite," noting the favorable match conditions he negotiated. American grandmaster Larry Christiansen agrees and says "Kramnik has the ideal style to handle a computer."

Levy thinks "it depends entirely on whether Kramnik is in his top form. If he is, he wins."

In August, Kramnik rated his chances at between 40 and 50 percent. Asked if he still believed that, he said Thursday at a news conference: "I don't know. My plan is to just play one game after another and see what happens." He said that during his preparations, he had played the new version of Deep Fritz against the one he played in 2002 and the new version "just crushed" the old one.

Last month, Kramnik reunified the world championship for the first time since 1993 by beating Bulgarian Veselin Topalov in a match. Ironically, that match was marred by accusations from Topalov's side that Kramnik was cheating by using a computer during long bathroom breaks. These allegations have been widely dismissed within the chess world.

I hope he wins.

 

[Narz]

To err is human but this is ridiculous (thanks to Fifty Fiftyson for pointing it out) :

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3509

Man vs machine shocker: Kramnik allows mate in one
27.11.2006 Vladimir Kramnik played another wonderfully profound game, piling the pressure on Deep Fritz on the black side of a Queen's Gambit Accepted, and taking the computer to the edge of defeat. As usual the computer defended tenaciously and by move 34 Fritz had equalised and the game was clearly drawn. And then Kramnik overlooked mate in one!

 

[kryszcztov]

Really, really strange... He must have been under pressure inside himself all that time, I can't find another "explanation".

 

[col]

Hmm - probably had a few bets on his oppo.

 

[SanPellegrino]

end result: Fritz won 4:2

I guess that was the last major "man vs. machine" match we saw, the comp will only get stronger

 

[Singleshot]

Heh, no computers ever beaten even a good novice Go player. The world computer Go championships have something like a 19 stone lead over an experienced teenage player, and none has ever won.

I love Go (IMHO, its better than Chess). It reminds me a little of Civ, specially city placement in the early stages.

 

[Narz]

I love Go (IMHO, its better than Chess). It reminds me a little of Civ, specially city placement in the early stages.

I had no interest in Go previously but if it's like Civ! I'll check it out sometime.

 

[Stegyre]

I had no interest in Go previously but if it's like Civ! I'll check it out sometime.

Well, there's no tech race, and only one kind of unit, no wonders, and only two civs, but other than that, the games are practically identical.

(My wife loves to play Go, although we only ever play on the "small" boards, not the full-size games.)

 

[Narz]

Well, there's no tech race, and only one kind of unit, no wonders, and only two civs, but other than that, the games are practically identical.

Yeah, nothing quite like Civ. I considered buying the Civilization board game (there are two different kinds I think) but neither got very good reviews.

 

[Singleshot]

I had no interest in Go previously but if it's like Civ! I'll check it out sometime.

Hehe, like Stegyre says, it's a two player abstract, it doesnt have a great deal in common with Civilisation. Just that some stages in the Civ game feel like corresponding stages in Go, I'm not sure if it's just me that thinks that. I do know a lot of people have commented on its similarity to a military campaign (where Chess would be more like a high-paced skirmish). China being China, it's been played by leaders and generals from Sun Tzu to Mao Zedong. Civ is a more realistic simulation, but will it still be played in 3000 years time?

Anyway, since I began derailing the thread, I'll get it back on topic. I'm kinda interested in AI. I've heard that a human/computer team is a very strong combo, with the human's ability for long-term strategy and the computer's brute force ability to analyse completely the next few board positions.

One question for debate could be whether the man-hours spent on chess-playing programs could be better spent? Perhaps their main use is as a benchmark for the development of AI? They seem to get more media coverage than Turing Award (conversation) programs, I don't know why.

On the other hand, I think dedicating your whole life to chess is a little weird. 'Specially that six-year old kid I saw whose parents wanted him to be a genius and made him memorise the latin names of museum exhibits and study chess all the time. I'm glad my parents never forced me to do anything like that, I'm free to expressmy genius my own way. That's why I spend all my free time on forums

 

[Narz]

Hehe, like Stegyre says, it's a two player abstract, it doesnt have a great deal in common with Civilisation. Just that some stages in the Civ game feel like corresponding stages in Go, I'm not sure if it's just me that thinks that. I do know a lot of people have commented on its similarity to a military campaign (where Chess would be more like a high-paced skirmish). China being China, it's been played by leaders and generals from Sun Tzu to Mao Zedong. Civ is a more realistic simulation, but will it still be played in 3000 years time?

The only reason I never really explored into it is that it just seemed to abstract and vast, with only one kind of piece and a huge board.

I'll still try it someday though.

Have you ever played Chinese Chess?

On the other hand, I think dedicating your whole life to chess is a little weird. 'Specially that six-year old kid I saw whose parents wanted him to be a genius and made him memorise the latin names of museum exhibits and study chess all the time. I'm glad my parents never forced me to do anything like that, I'm free to expressmy genius my own way. That's why I spend all my free time on forums

Well, what I like about it is that you can easily measure you progress (thru your rating) and it's a good mental discipline. I also like that it's somewhat of a universal language (I played a ton when I was visiting Mexico even though my opponents and I could barely speak to each other).

Time spent playing studying chess is better than say, watching television, IMO. Also, if you get good you can win prize money in tournaments (not much of course, but something to do when you visit different cities).