Man vs. Machine: Challenging Human Supremacy at Chess

Müller, Karsten; Schaeffer, Jonathan

ISBN 10: 1941270964 / ISBN 13: 9781941270967

Editore: Russell Enterprises, Inc. (edition ), 2018

Riguardo questo articolo

It's a preowned item in good condition and includes all the pages. It may have some general signs of wear and tear, such as markings, highlighting, slight damage to the cover, minimal wear to the binding, etc., but they will not affect the overall reading experience.

Codice articolo 1941270964-11-1

Dati bibliografici

• Titolo: Man vs. Machine: Challenging Human Supremacy at Chess
• Editore: Russell Enterprises, Inc. (edition )
• Data di pubblicazione: 2018
• Lingua: Inglese
• ISBN 10: 1941270964
• ISBN 13: 9781941270967
• Rilegatura: Paperback
• Condizione: Good

Descrizione articolo

Riassunto

Man vs. MachineTechnology continues to advance at a rapid pace. It may sound quaint today, but not so long ago, computers battled humans for supremacy at the game of chess. The challenge of building a computer program capable of defeating the best of human-kind at chess was one of the original grand challenges of the fledgling field of artificial intelligence. On one side were dedicated scientists and hobbyists who invested decades of effort developing the software and hardware technology; on the other side were incredibly talented humans with only their determination and preparation to withstand the onslaught of technology.The man versus machine battle in chess is a landmark in the history of technology. There are numerous books that document the technical aspects of this epic story. The human side is not often told. Few chess players are inclined to write about their man-machine encounters, other than annotating the games played. This book brings the two sides together. It tells the stories of many of the key scientists and chess players that participated in a 50-year research project to advance the understanding of computing technology.“Grandmaster Karsten Müller and Professor Jonathan Schaeffer have managed to describe the fascinating history of the unequal fight of man against machine in an entertaining and instructive way. It evoked pleasant and not so pleasant memories of my own fights against the monsters. I hope that their work gives you as much pleasure as it has given me.” – From the Foreword by Vladimir Kramnik, 14th World Chess Champion

Estratto. © Ristampato con autorizzazione. Tutti i diritti riservati.

Chapter 72750 (1996-1997)There was no doubt that IBM wanted to see a rematch. Internal IBM assessmentindicated that the match generated enormous and favorable publicity for the company, especially for the company’s stock price. With that much value at stake, the decision to invest in the DEEP BLUE team way back in 1989 was beginning to look like a bargain!The DEEP BLUE team did a postmortem analysis of the match and came to severalconclusions:• Search: No major issues arose. The searching capabilities appeared sufficient. The program was tactically strong.• Knowledge: Kasparov clearly had a greater positional understanding of the game,and that was where major improvements were possible for the program. This meant 1) identifying more chess knowledge that would add value to the program,2) putting that knowledge on the chip, and, most importantly, 3) tuning the program so that the knowledge was applied in the right circumstances with the appropriate weighting.• Openings: One can never do too much opening preparation! However, there were special cases that were not properly planned. For example, the team should have had their opening book prepared for a line to play as Black in their “must win” game 6.• Match strategy. Consider possible match scenarios that might arise and decide inadvance how they will be handled. For example, the team did not know how to respond to Kasparov’s draw request in game 5.The chess knowledge aspects were the most challenging. Sometimes DEEP BLUEwould play a “bad” move and the team would dive into the program’s innards trying to figure out what when wrong. But sometimes things were not as they seemed (Campbell 2005):There were examples of that in the games against Kasparov -- moves that seemedcounterintuitive or just wrong, just plain wrong. But there was a logic to them, and you could reconstruct that logic. I saw plenty of examples of that as we were programming and preparing DEEP BLUE to play the match against Kasparov – the two matches. Many cases where we were very upset about a move that it played, and wewould assume it was a bug and conduct a deep investigation and find out it had to play that move – there was no choice. Any other move would have lost, or significantly worsened its position. But intuition sometimes let us down into thinking we knew what was going on, when we didn’t always. Further, even identifying possible errors was hard.