Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Computers in chess... Good or Evil? Part Two.

  • GM Gserper
  • | 17/feb/2013
  • | 23785 visualizzazioni
  • | 94 commenti

In last week's article, we looked at a very interesting phenomenon of computer chess - the "horizon effect." Basically it is a computer's inability in certain situations to see the future no matter how fast its processor is or how many plys it can calculate. In the following game our "human computer" Hikaru Nakamura takes full advantage of this phenomenon. This brilliant game shows why people are still smarter than computers, no matter how powerful the computers chips become. Let's examine this epic battle step by step.

Part 1: Fortress

The position is an obvious draw since neither side can open the position to his advantage.


Part 2 : Nakamura's First Trick

Nakamura sacrifices (or maybe just blunders, since it is just a 3 minute ICC blitz) an exchange.  But the resulting position is still a 'dead' draw because it is still the same fortress:

Part 3 : The devilish trick!

As the position is still a draw, both sides keep moving aimlessly back and forth and the game comes to the inevitable "50 moves" rule. As most of you know, if in the duration of 50 moves no capture was made and no pawn moved, one of the opponent's can claim a draw. The computer could see that the game is about to be drawn, but despite the positive evaluation of the position it couldn't do much as the only way to avoid the draw was to push and sacrifice a pawn which change the evaluation to about even.  So, Nakamura tries to avoid a draw by sacrificing an exchange one move before the "50 moves rule" takes effect!

And now we have another fortress, but the game continues!!

Part 4 : The Bait!

The opponents' aimlessly moves and even the trade of Queens on move 124 doesn't change anything. Another instance of the '50 moves rule' comes into play and on move 174 the computer must make a tough choice. Either it makes just about any move and allows the game to be drawn or it sacrifices a pawn just to avoid the draw.  Unlike the situation on move 60, computer's evaluation of the position is so positive that even after the pawn sacrifice it thinks it is winning.  So it sacrifices a pawn!



 

Part 5: Massacre

After White loses a very important pawn (really, the anchor of his position), he loses his whole queenside, pawn by pawn. After that, White's clumsy Rooks are no match for Black's minor pieces and the armada of passed pawns. So, the game reaches the next position:


Part 6 : Public Humiliation

The computer again 'forgets' to resign and just like in the game from the previous article, Nakamura humiliates the computer in front of cheering audience:


It is a pity that it's impossible to make a Hollywood movie based on this game. In my opinion this game is as exciting for a chess player as the classical movie "Sting" with Paul Newman and Robert Redford.

to be continued...

Commenti


  • 10 mesi fa

    wezmabini

    The word "humiliate" hardly applies.

    Remember: computers really hate being anthropomorphised. ;)

  • 16 mesi fa

    Wand3rer

    Either this guy likes bishops..or he likes challenges.

  • 17 mesi fa

    GothicChessed

    >rafael11: Interesting,  I also happen to be a software developer and my view is that >the real improvement in engine playing strength was made by the hardware.

    That's TOTAL CRAP!
    For a software development you don't know nothing about Chess software development! NOTHING!

    For someone like me that has closely observed and worked with Chess programs from 1997 till now, it is a fact as strong as that the Sun rises from the east, that software development was more than HUGE!!

    A small example:

    2003:
    The engine Shredder was crushing everything that went on its path. Every engine of the past was killed by Shredder 7.04 playing IN THE SAME HARDWARE of course. A sign of software development.
    Let's see the SSDF list back then:

       #           NAME                                               ELO  GAMES  Score
       1 Shredder 7.04 UCI 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2812   781      75%  
       2 Junior 8.0  256MB Athlon 1200 MHz        2784   545      68%  

    The undisputed number 1 the beast that was winning every other engine back then.

    But let's see now a game of today(2013), 10 years later, between the beast of 2003(Shredder 7.04) and the beast of 2013(Houdini 3) ON THE SAME HARDWARE of course:

    http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=490972&t=45902

     







    Houdini 3 after 100 games against the beast of 2003, won 99 of them!!!!!!
    And had one draw only!!!! +650 ELO stronger!

    That is SOFTWARE development!
    That is PROGRAMMING techniques development!

    OK? Or do we have to hear any more ridiculous things again?

  • 18 mesi fa

    rafael11

    Interesting,  I also happen to be a software developer and my view is that the real improvement in engine playing strength was made by the hardware. Chess engines still generate a tree of possibilities up to a certain ply evaluate all the positions with numerical heuristics and then backtrack to the original position. More memory meant that the tree is now much bigger, and faster processors means it all happens faster. But it´s amazing how stronger they got because of it, really. I think the refinement of the evaluation heuristics was not that important, but I would have to implement the heuristics and run it on a 486 to prove this.

    I am not sure Carlsen would have a chance, given current knowledge. But some facts about hardware and software limitations could be the basis of an interesting leap forward in anti-computer strategy.  This article is a great example of long-term strategy beating the limited height of the engine´s tree, which could be a possible direction of research.

  • 18 mesi fa

    rafael11

    Hi FEDTEL, it was probably not as good as Germany, the beloved land of my immigrant ancestors. Wie gehts hinen ? Back to the topic:

    Your argument goes: Kasparov has been defeated by Deep Blue, he´s the best *all around* chess player ever, therefore, research in the area of anti-computer strategy is settled once in for all. Anti-computer strategy has no room for improvement.

    If that´s what you think(and many people think that way), well, I don´t agree. The fallacy of non-sequitur comes to mind. Yes he lost, no, the premise doesn´t imply there´s no more room for research. Yes, he´s the best, but his knowledge is limited, much like the knowledge of the soviets was limmited against Fischer. Then the soviets did research in the opening, refuted most of Fischer´s lines and surprise, Fischer went crazy abandoned chess and created a chess variant.

    And thanks for the word inteligent.

  • 18 mesi fa

    rafael11

    "All I have been labouring to say is that being a powerful chess player does NOT make you the leader of the pack when it comes to discussing computers in chess."

    But he´s probably close to it in the matters of anti-computer strategy.

    "It does seem to me like his bottom line is
    Humans will ALWAYS be better at chess than computers"

    Until we build a computer the size of the moon capable of computing the entire 32 pieces tablebase, engines will NOT play perfect chess, and hence its mistakes can be exploited. In spite of it´s amazing calculating capacities, in a battle there are other factors leading to victory. Knowing your enemy is one of them. Humans are much better on that,
    and I share his optimism that *with the right anti-computer strategy*, humans have good chances against computers. What we really miss is more research on this area.

    "Computers will NEVER be able to solve this puzzle"

    The starting position, for instance will probably only be solved when the entire 32 pieces table base is computed, which may take another thousand years, optimistically, if they ever get built at all.
    Until then, engines won´t solve this one.

    By humans he probably means humans with the right knowledge, skill and capable of understanding an engine and exploiting its limitations.Not average Joe playing Battle Chess for fun.

    "the programming of the engine was DELIBERATELY ABUSED"

    How so ? By understanding the engine´s limitations and playing against its weaknesses ?
    Yes, that´s what you do you in battle! Welcome to war!

  • 18 mesi fa

    rafael11

    The only thing I don´t get is how do you play 271 moves in 3 minutes. Nakamura has the arm of The Flash ?

  • 18 mesi fa

    YawMawn

    "Dear mr. YawMawn, it's apparent that I did not get my title where you got your rating."

    "Mr. kiokusanagy, everybody qualifies talking about anything, regardless of his title and playing strength."

    So because I am unrated, I am unfit to discuss computers and chess, though I am qualifited to talk about everything despite my playing strength? Contradictory statements.

     

    I thank you for your response. I was not expecting one but I am happy to have received one. The link you gave us brought me to an amazing game which is a credit to GM Serper's abilities (which I do not believe anyone is doubting).

    All I have been labouring to say is that being a powerful chess player does NOT make you the leader of the pack when it comes to discussing computers in chess.

    I hope his next part has a clearer point because I don't understand the point of the first two. It does seem to me like his bottom line is "Humans will ALWAYS be better at chess than computers" and "Computers will NEVER be able to solve this puzzle". I am trying to point out that both of these statements are actually false today, let alone in twenty years.

     

    If 15 years ago Kasparov could only narrowly beat a computer from the pre-GHz era then it is profoundly stupid to say that anyone could consistently beat a computer today. The only examples Mr. Humans-Always-Greater-Than-Computers has are two games that are to exceptions what exceptions are to standard games, where the programming of the engine was DELIBERATELY ABUSED. This blurb alone should shatter his first point.

    As for the second point, which is all the "Computers will NEVER ..." crap, several examples are brought up already. Shredder solving the unsolvable puzzle, Houdini finding most of Serpers incredible moves and even finding inaccuracies in his play, etc..

     

    If neither of the big points he seems to be trying to make are true, then why are you calling me a troll for saying he is wrong?

  • 18 mesi fa

    Wappinschaw

    Who gives a ##++##**.

  • 18 mesi fa

    GothicChessed

    >o nakamura can beat a 2008 computer and end up with 5 bishops but >Kasparov can't beat a 1997 computer in a match? Seems legit.

     

    Bad logic since you forget one very basic thing:

    How many games Nakamura had lost.Wink

    And they are countless. Countless!! His wins can be counted on the fingers of one hand. OK perhaps 2. Tongue Out

    I have the statistics from games on playchess, ICC, etc, and for rapid or blitz Chess games computers have something like 99.9% score!! No match at all.

  • 18 mesi fa

    RICK29

    obviously the chess prog. was set not to allow draw by 3 fold repetition, thereby giiving naka the advantage as he was just moving a piece back and forth. i therefore conclude that rybka programmers should program it to go for a draw when in a "lock position".

  • 18 mesi fa

    Chessgrandmaster2001

    Lol...

  • 18 mesi fa

    EdJohnson26

    The proper way of approaching this topic is not to search for and nitpick every little positional concept computers have not yet mastered.

    The only question is which human is going to figure out how to teach it to them first.

    Obviously, the best computers started beating the best humans years ago. Even the computer illiterate chess masters in this thread can understand that.

  • 18 mesi fa

    IM pfren

    Dear mr. YawMawn, it's apparent that I did not get my title where you got your rating.

    I suggest you go to a tennis forum, where you can easily prove using facts that Federer has no clue how to hold the bat. Trolling here does not fit your profundity.

    Oh, and credits to mr. Serper for not bothering replying to idlers of your kind. You are simply not worth it.

    If you cared to look at something like that:

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1289099

    ...then you could realize that mr. Serper knows about chess much, much more than all the posters in that thread combined do. But then, I guess your strong point is not chess- shameless trolling is though, and I have to admit that your are stunningly good at that.

  • 18 mesi fa

    element1

    I agree that computers will continue to "evolve" much faster than we and we are doomed to lose every game with them if we have them play to the best of their ability.  But the fact that we created them says something, doesn't it?  Don't we want our children to succeed?

    I just hope they learn mercy as well as chess...

  • 18 mesi fa

    LEO_KNIGHT

    ı beg to dısagree.. ı apprct d fact that the computer ıs carbage ın carbage out... thıs does not mean that our lıttle box ıs forever condemned to be stupıd. all the computer need ıs more resources. thıs wld help her respond properly to every move.

  • 18 mesi fa

    LEO_KNIGHT

    ı beg to dısagree.. ı apprct d fact that the computer ıs carbage ın carbage out... thıs does not mean that our lıttle box ıs forever condemned to be stupıd. all the computer need ıs more resources. thıs wld help her respond properly to every move.

  • 18 mesi fa

    Kiros37100

    kiokusanagy

    As far as definitions go...

    Calculate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculate

    Thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think

    Quantatively measuring calculation power is fairly arbitrary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flops

    Quantatively measuring thinking is not possible as far as I know.. But also unnecessary, computers simply can't do it. They compute. Nothing else.

    Not sure what else you're looking for, if anything.

  • 18 mesi fa

    IM pfren

    Mr. kiokusanagy, everybody qualifies talking about anything, regardless of his title and playing strength. Please get off your Ceauseskian horse, and accept a couple of things that are in no need to be proven.

    By hinting to a GM and widely acclaimed chess professional "The author should stick to analyzing chess games" you don't sound rude, as intended. Just stupid to the extreme.

  • 18 mesi fa

    stocke

    how do you do 200+ moves in 3 minutes?! o.o

Torna a inizio pagina

Pubblica la tua risposta: