 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in Hardware/Software. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Kasparov VS Deep Blue |
 |  |  |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Kasumi-Astra Administrator Level: 62  Posts: 1535/1867 EXP: 1971846 For next: 12840 Since: 03-15-04 From: Reading, UK Uni: Sheffield, UK Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 12 hours |
| ||
| In 1997, IBM played a re-match with Garry Kasparov, the reigning Chess champion. The first match was won by Kasparov, and IBM challenged him to a rematch in 1997. In 1997, Deep Blue won the best of six games. However, until watching a TV program today, I had not realised how controversial the result was. In the first game of six in 1997, Kasparov completely dominated Deep Blue. It was a decisive victory. However, game two proved to be the turning point of the competition. Deep Blue exhibited some very unusual behavior for a computer. Playing Chess against a computer is a predicatble affair among Chess masters. Though they are programmed with countless strategies and can calculate millions of moves in a single second, they still respond in a mechanical way. Computers are materialistic, they are always trying to achieve victory. When Kasparov offered Deep Blue an obvious advantage that would seemingly offer the computer a quicker way to victory, Deep Blue did not function as expected. This was a revelation for everyone who was involved. Playing Chess with a computer hinges on fooling the computer into following a strategy that the player knows a counter strategy will result in victory. Deep Blue instead put in place another strategy that would cripple Kasparov. The controversy was further compounded by the hidden Deep Blue. The machine was hidden from view in a room across the hall from the television studio, and IBM denied all access to the machine expect to IBM staff. It was also known that several Chess Grand Masters were present. It is theorised that if a human user were to influence Deep Blue's strategies in-game it would create a combination completely unbeatable by a human or a machine alone. Immediately after Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in the competition, IBM's stock rose by 15%. The benefit to IBM from the win is an obvious "perk" to beating Kasparov. Shortly afterwards, Deep Blue was dismantled and all research stopped. It has been suggested that in the world before Enron, where public interest in corperate affairs was much lower, that IBM "cheated" for the benefit of it's stock. Did Deep Blue win against Kasparov? What does victory or defeat mean for computing and the corperate world? Does it mean that we, as beings on the planet, have finally begun to be surpassed in our only advantage over other life forms, intelligence? (edited by Kasumi Skywalker on 05-29-05 11:47 AM) (edited by Kasumi Skywalker on 05-29-05 11:48 AM) |
|||
Kitten Yiffer Purple wand Furry moderator Vivent l'exp����¯�¿�½������©rience de signalisation d'amusement, ou bien ! Level: 135 Posts: 9746/11162 EXP: 28824106 For next: 510899 Since: 03-15-04 From: Sweden Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 4 min. |
| ||
Well, computers still lack creativity. While they can solve logical problems they must get guidelines on how the problem can be solved. And often in a mathemitical way. And there is numerous examples where a human can surpass a computer, even if they would get 1000x times more powerful.  I would want to see a rematch between Kasparov and Deep Blue, or any other computer. Not until we get Quantum computing working, i'm not worried. |
| Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Kasparov VS Deep Blue |
| | |
