[Paleopsych] BH: Cozying Up with Deep Blue
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Sun Apr 17 17:03:49 UTC 2005
Cozying Up with Deep Blue
http://www.betterhumans.com/Print/index.aspx?ArticleID=2005-03-02-2
"Advanced Chess" pitting computer-human teams against each other shows how
humans can avoid obsolescence through symbiotic relationships with
technology
By George Dvorsky
Betterhumans Staff
3/2/2005 2:47 PM
Several weeks ago, while bored on a commuter train, I decided to pull
out my Palm Pilot and play a game of chess. Seeing as I had no one to
play against, I decided to try my hand against the computer. I was
quite confident that I'd have little difficultly keeping up--it's
hardly Deep Blue, after all.
I arbitrarily picked an average difficultly level and proceeded to get
my ass kicked in frighteningly short order. Somewhat discouraged, I
then tried at the easiest level. Once again, I suffered an
embarrassing thrashing.
With my dignity soiled, I vowed to improve my chess skills. I wasn't
going to let some puny [8]Palm Pilot beat me at chess. I dusted off an
old chess manual and practiced some [9]standard openings and
strategies. I can now proudly say that I can beat my handheld at level
5. My goal is to beat it at level 8, maximum difficulty.
Playing a computer at chess can be rather humbling. As you're waiting
for it to make its move, watching the "thinking" progress bar move
from left to right, it's daunting to consider how many moves it's
evaluating. I'm happy if I can think three to four moves ahead. The
computer can contemplate thousands every second.
I'm sure [10]Garry Kasparov felt the same way back in 1996 when pitted
against [11]Deep Blue. Now that computer could crunch the numbers.
Written in C and running under the AIX operating system, Deep Blue was
a massively parallel, 30-node, RS/6000, SP-based computer system
enhanced with 480 special purpose VLSI chess processors. Odds are
those stats are meaningless to you, but this one shouldn't be: This
mother could crunch 100,000,000 positions per second.
100,000,000 positions per second!
It's a wonder that Kasparov could play against it at all. Of course,
there's more to chess than just raw computation. It's a game of
subtlety, nuance and sophisticated psychology and strategy--elements
that are far beyond the capabilities of even the most powerful
computers. In fact, prior to Kasparov's defeat, some chess experts
maintained that computers would never be capable of defeating
[12]grandmasters. But thanks to Deep Blue and its successors, we all
know that this is in fact possible.
Kasparov's loss was indeed a deep shock to the chess world. It was a
significant milestone in the history of chess, not just because a
reigning world champion finally lost against a computer, but because
of the ramifications to the game itself. Did Kasparov's loss signify
the beginning of the end for meaningful human interaction in
professional chess? Would future tournaments see humans as mere
spectators to machines?
More broadly, did Deep Blue's intrusion into a previously sanctified
human realm represent the beginning of a larger trend? If computers
could now defeat even our grandmasters, what else might they be
capable of? Indeed, the steady onslaught of [13]Moore's Law and
breakthroughs in [14]parallel processing has some fearing the rise of
[15]AI and the subsequent delegation of human minds. Are Homo sapiens
poised for obsolescence and even replacement?
Well, if Kasparov has his way, the answer is no--and not because he
feels that humans can continue to compete with computers. Rather,
Kasparov believes the future of chess can be advanced through the
cooperation of computers with humans. Consequently, Kasparov's idea of
[16]Advanced Chess, where human-machine teams compete against other
human-machine teams, offers an effective framework for how humanity as
a whole should manage its ongoing relationship with its advancing
technologies. To avoid replacement, we need to establish a symbiosis
with our technologies and create something greater than the sum of its
parts.
Computer chess vs. human chess
In all fairness to Kasparov and other expert chess players, computers
still aren't able to consistently defeat their human counterparts.
After losing to Deep Blue in the first game, Kasparov rebounded by
winning three games and drawing two, defeating it by a final score of
four to two. Kasparov lost the 1997 rematch, but managed a draw
against its successor, [17]X3D Fritz in 2003. Similarly, grandmaster
[18]Vladimir Kramnik tied [19]Deep Fritz in an eight-game tournament a
year earlier. As it currently stands, the tables are quite even in
terms of what the best computers can do against the best players.
But what's interesting is not so much the parity; it's that humans and
machines play chess so differently yet still come up even. Computers
and humans have unique weaknesses that are clearly offset by their
strengths.
It's generally acknowledged that computers are superior calculators,
while humans are better at long-range planning. Computers cannot be
psychologically intimidated (something Kasparov does very well against
his human opponents), nor are they capable of suffering from fatigue
or other physical problems (during the 1984 [20]World Championships,
for example, [21]Anatoly Karpov lost 22 pounds and was hospitalized
several times as he battled Kasparov in a protracted tournament that
saw them play well over 30 games). Computers are also immune to making
silly mistakes (Kramnik lost game five against Fritz after making a
severe blunder).
Humans, on the other hand, can plan, bluff and, most importantly,
adapt. Kasparov, in all his encounters with computers, tends to finish
more strongly than he begins. Even in my own clashes against my Palm
Pilot, I have noticed that my computer opponent gets quite messed-up
when I open with the [22]Queen's Gambit. Consequently, that's now my
standard opening against it. The Palm, on the other hand, cannot learn
from my mistakes, and has no idea that I fare very poorly in end game
scenarios.
Computers are also quite poor at recognizing when something is
irrelevant. During its [23]first match against Kasparov, for example,
Deep Blue eliminated an inconsequential pawn at a critical point in
the game. It's thought that Deep Blue sensed no threat from Kasparov
at the time and that the move wouldn't detract from the attack it was
developing at the other side of the board. It was merely being
mindlessly methodical by claiming the material.
Assistive devices
In consideration of these differences and unique strengths, it's safe
to say that the best chess playing entity in existence today is
neither a computer nor a human, but rather a computer and a human
working together. As [24]Albert Einstein once remarked, "Computers are
incredibly fast, accurate and stupid; humans are incredibly slow,
inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond
imagination."
Indeed, computers have changed the face of chess--not just because
they have proven to be formidable opponents, but because they can also
act as potent assistive devices. Grandmasters now use them extensively
for planning and practice. Exhaustive hash tables have been generated
by computers that map virtually all end game scenarios involving up to
five pieces. Scenario analysis is now possible at an unprecedented
scale, including backward analysis (starting from a position with a
large edge and moving back to a starting position) to find new
branches worth analyzing, and multi-variation analysis mode to examine
alternate tries worthy of analysis.
Simply put, not using computers to assist in chess play would be as
silly as not using calculators to help us do math. Further, when
looked at as prostheses, computers clearly expand human capacities,
helping us take our activities and disciplines to the next level. They
enable us to partake in endeavors that were previously cognitively
impossible.
Recognizing this, Kasparov proposed a new form of competition during
the late 90s. Inspired by his matches against computers, Kasparov felt
that humans and computers should cooperate instead of contending with
each other. Called "Advanced Chess," the new style of play would see
human players team-up with a computer and compete against another
man-machine unit.
Kasparov got the ball rolling by organizing a six-game Advanced Chess
match against [25]Veselin Topalov in June of 1998, with Kasparov using
[26]Fritz 5 and Topalov using [27]ChessBase 7.0. The match ended in a
three-three draw. Kasparov commented afterward, "My prediction seems
to be true that in Advanced Chess it's all over once someone gets a
won position. This experiment was exciting and helped spectators
understand what's going on. It was quite enjoyable and will take a
very big and prestigious place in the history of chess."
Since this initial match, Advanced Chess tournaments have been
scheduled annually in Leon, Spain. Grandmaster [28]Viswanathan Anand,
the winner of three titles, is currently considered the world's best
Advance Chess player. After losing to Kramnik in 2002, Anand
commented, "I think in general people tend to overestimate the
importance of the computer in the competitions. You can do a lot of
things with the computer but you still have to play good chess...I
don't really feel that the computer alone can change the objective
true to the position."
Expanding on Anand's point, advocates of Advanced Chess argue that the
strength of a player does not come from any of the components of the
human-computer team, but rather from the symbiosis of the two. The
combination of man and machine results in a "player" that is endowed
with the computer's extreme power and accuracy and the human's
creativity and sagacity.
Ultimately, the combined skills of knowledgeable humans and computer
chess engines can produce a result stronger than either alone.
Advanced Chess has resulted in heights never before seen in chess. It
has produced blunder-free games with the beauty and quality of both
perfect tactical play and highly meaningful strategic plans, and it
has offered chess aficionados remarkable insight into the thought
processes of strong human chess players and strong chess computers.
Cooperation and merger, not obsolescence
With the rise in prominence of computers in the chess world, Kasparov
refused to throw up his hands in despair and declare the end of human
involvement in the game. Instead, he devised a new activity that would
combine the best of what the digital world had to offer with that of
the biological. The result was something greater than the sum of its
individual parts.
The rest of society should learn from this example. Naturally, people
are growing increasingly wary of supercomputers and the potential for
AI; it's understandable that people fear a future in which humans are
replaced by machines. But as the example of Advanced Chess shows,
that's not necessarily what's going to happen. The development of AI
and other information technologies will continue to advance based on
how we choose to adapt to them and how they adapt to us. Further,
human control over where and how advanced technologies develop will
have a significant impact on the kinds of collaborative and symbiotic
systems that emerge.
Thanks to human ingenuity, our disciplines, activities and goals will
continue to change and evolve, taking the human experience to
unprecedented places as we become capable of things never before
possible.
Like beating my Palm Pilot at level 6.
References
8. http://www.palmone.com/
9. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_opening
10. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov
11. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue
12. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Grandmaster
13. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_Law
14. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_processing
15. http://www.betterhumans.com/Resources/Encyclopedia/article.aspx?articleID=2002-05-08-1
16. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess
17. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/X3D_Fritz
18. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Kramnik
19. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Fritz
20. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship
21. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karpov
22. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Gambit
23. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_-_Kasparov,_1996,_Game_1
24. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
25. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veselin_Topalov
26. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_(chess)
27. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChessBase
28. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viswanathan_Anand
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list