

How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player - Voodoo463
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/24/7056493/how-a-computer-error-helped-deep-blue-beat-humanitys-best-chess-player

======
semiel
What I've always found so interesting about this story is how singular a
moment this was, where humans and machines could play a meaningful game of
chess. For millennia before, a chess-playing machine was nonsense. Today,
chess computers so completely outclass human players that mobile phones can
win high-level tournaments. There was a period of no more than five or ten
years where the best computer could play the best human, and have the result
be in doubt, and it happened right around the turn of the millennium.

~~~
nas
It was really fun at the time. Computer chess enthusiasts were discussing the
match on rec.games.chess and analyzing real-time on ICC. PC chess programs
could not check as deep as Deep Blue so there was lots of speculation on how
good the AI actually was. CrazyBird's (Feng-hsiung Hsu) book is a recommended
read.

------
LanceH
I've always been of the opinion that the computers should have to play through
qualifying tournaments to get to a "title" match like this.

IBM had thousands of matches to prep their player and Kasparov had none. This
disparity is crazy for top level chess.

I've also never heard about this match being discussed in terms of the FIDE-
PCA rift, which may have given the challenger more leverage as IBM could shop
between two champions. With a unified chess world, Kasparov might have been
able to put the screws to IBM for a more "fair" match.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
> With a unified chess world, Kasparov might have been able to put the screws
> to IBM for a more "fair" match

I'm not up on the details of FIDE vs PCA. However, Wikipedia [1] claims that
Kasparov _created_ PCA. So he was actually responsible for the rift. But
you're claiming this rift hurt his leverage?

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Chess_Association](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Chess_Association)

~~~
LanceH
He was the PCA champ, FIDE had their own champ (or might threaten to, I can't
remember). IBM is about to throw a boatload of cash in hyping the event.

From my perspective it would seem anyone claiming to be champion would be
under pressure to play or risk having the other league's champion be hyped as
the best player in the world by IBM.

I think without the split that Kasparov may have been able to dictate more
firm terms. Examples such as requiring previous play by the computer, 3rd
party auditing, release of logs afterward, etc...

------
zhng
Direct link to documentary
[http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11694550](http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11694550)

------
sp332
It's interesting, but it's not news. Nate Silver published this information in
his book _The Signal and the Noise_ back in 2012.

~~~
s-phi-nl
Link to the chapter: [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rage-against-the-
machine...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rage-against-the-machines/)

------
zoltz
"After the loss Kasparov questioned whether Deep Blue's team had cheated in
order to beat him, but in a fascinating new short documentary by
FiveThirtyEight and ESPN, it's shown that the momentous victory — and the
notorious 44th move that led to it — was actually the result of a computer
error."

But the video actually says the error occurred in the first game, which
Kasparov won, rather than in the second, which he lost and after which he
suggested he had been cheated.

------
cpeterso
For a different spin on films about chess-playing computers, check out
_Computer Chess_ , a mumblecore mockumentary about a 1980s computer chess
tournament:

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2007360/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2007360/)

------
raverbashing
Can it really be called a "computer error" for a non-deterministic program?

It beat Garry Kasparov in multiple matches, it's probably better than most
chess programs at the time.

------
BrokenFacts
More like.. The Ghost in the Machine.

------
Voodoo463
This must be a mite frustrating.

------
chess11112222
why wrong? 1.)correlation does NOT imply causation 2.)psychology of FEAR mode
can strike ANY chess player 3.)the computer at that time will lose because it
does NOT understand the art of deception and 'feints.' 4.)IBM Deep Blue is
moving to poker, which is a MUCH better test.

5.)observations are NOT double blind.

6.)highly useful IMHO (at least for me as a child) is to IMAGINE the opponent
is 'genius' and then 'stupid.' Simple thought experiment. Even the dog with
low IQ is able to predict the owner's moves.

7.)It's obvious that even basic 'stupidity' is mentioned on HN, the verge and
even the Nate Silver book. Why?

8.)time or tempo is important and more so with high level champions. So,
'losing tempo' by 'computer error' or 'harmless rook move' is BAD.

9.)Obviously, it is far worse for a HUMAN PLAYER, since it means that the
opponent has lost its train of thought. For Deep Blue it means BAD CODING.

note: based on similarities to my experience as child chess champion.

PS. the definitie book still NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN, including some open sourcing
of code.

PPS. generally the only suggestion I can make to improving chess ability is
YOGA or relaxation techniques. Why?

the key problem IMHO is stress cause by 'context switching' between frames
depending upon 'models.' i.e. model of attack or 'strategic attack' or 'feint
attack', etc.

the key question is: the computer does NOT switch between modes but has one
global mode, IMHO. as a comparison to human player.

~~~
chess11112222
addendum martial arts >> kung fu >> styles >> drunken style or erratic
movements. information theory >> low Signal to Noise >> SNR or lesson learn -
don't make your goal and intention too obvious to the enemy. philosophy >> Art
of War Strategy by Sun-Tze >> insert quote here math >> sequential game >>
algorithms >> meta and hyper heuristics

