EndGame: Challenging the Chess Masters

[188metalhead881]

A machine that CAN think, that will be a day I don't want to even live in. It's so terrifying.

[imfxxz]

IBM cheated on Kasparov, if they have not done so, they would have accepted Kasparov's will for another game.

[OnlineChessLessons]

Kasparov is one of the best chess players ever but IBM hired a team of 6 very good grandmasters to help design and modify Deep Blue to beat him. Currently, computers are ridiculously strong at chess and they are only getting better. Unfortunately I think it's only a matter of time before chess is mathematically solved.

[ridewave444]

O.K. Well, he missed perpetual check then That's because he's not perfect. No one is.Otherwise you'd never lose I guess. The more time that goes by the more you realize how incredible Kasparov was to compete against these computers. He's going against many strong minds.

[rookman64]

@ridewave444 actually there is no perpetual check...look up KingCrusher's video analyzing the final position.

[dragonheadofthewest]

@ridewave444 yeah playing computer is mentally tougher because you always think a compüuter is flawless its a psychological burden....

[amdfanatyk]

Deep Blue won because Kasparov collapsed not because the computer was so sophisticated. Kasparov missed perpetual check.

[rookman64]

@amdfanatyk actually there is no perpetual check...look up KingCrusher's video analyzing the final position.

[PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD]

I honestly think that Kasparov's match (albeit loss) vs. Deep Blue is just as much a testament to Kasparov's unbelievable human thinking ability as it is to the coming of "super" computers.

Kasparov wasn't just playing a machine that could calculate as deep as it wanted to, and one that would never show any sign of fatigue or nervousness; he was also pitting himself against the knowledge of countless other grandmasters. The machine got a LOT of help. Losing 2.5-3.5 is hardly a disappointment.

[evertoamicus]

Haha I remember when this happened. Really it's a testament to the human mind that he could even compete against those calculations. The video also makes a good point that a lot of human masters helped develop the software for deep blue so it was like he was playing x number of human players.

[dragonheadofthewest]

@evertoamicus you are talking complete bull thats totally untrue what you said and makes no sense, grandmaster had nothing to do with deep blue, he just said they just used brute force aproach.... and for the openings they just used book lines....

[icantfite]

id faint if i knew tht my opponent could think of 200,000,000 moves every second... heck it takes me 10 seconds to come up with 3

[amicrowaveoven]

next time, he should challenge with x-box360 or PS3 on 3D graphic

[soccerkills]

bobby would have won

[188metalhead881]

A machine that can "think" would be really really dangerous.

[imacyborg]

sure, but so are humans

[188metalhead881]

It is imposible to win a chess game with today's supercomputers.

[68873]

I know every time I play chess it dose not let me move

[cuevasdecamuy]

the problem is just the "human factor". Computers dont get tired. Kasparov did very well.

[Weho2]

Dayum

[jk59beads]

What's the music fro 1:21-3:02?

[vulcanflames]

why do people insist on making stupid arguments on THE FREAKING COMMENT SECTION OF YOUTUBE VIDS???????? wow guys... just..... WOW

*applauds*

[areataylor]

Notice the "super-duper" 'puter programmers haven't challenged the human chess players in a way that an eventual Champion is chosen because the GM's would then have a multitude of games to study and could then easily predict how a computer "thinks" and would destroy it probably 90% of the time. Humans have still got the "Super-computers" number.

[MugenNoKarayami]

Just the idea of Kasparov surviving 19 moves of a super computer is amazing in itself. 200Million+ moves per second? The difference between how the two are able to recall this information is what should really be looked at. Only then can Kasparov's abilities really be appreciated after seeing this.

[jk59beads]

Not only that, he played to a draw through the first five games.

[Ruxistico]

no, he won game 1 one convincingly.

[Ruxistico]

I am currently working on a project for my University where we are trying to figure that out. Remember, Kasparov did not love all the games in 19 moves. In Game 1 he wept the machine off the board. Game 2 he lost due to a brilliant long-term strategic plan of the computer. Game 3 4 and 5 were draws and In game 6 he simply patzered up completely due to the tremendous amount of pressure. In fact, deep blue did not calculate a single move in game 6. It had them all stored in its opening book.

[Naltoidais]

Ummm...Kasparov was not always a grandmaster, he had to learn from other players as well.

As for the difficulty of the task at hand;

Kasparov: think using his own methods of thought, translate to board.

Engineers: think using own methods, translate methods to a "mathematical formula" the computer can understand, then you have to translate the computers "thoughts" back into human understandable format so the "avatar" for the computer can make the move.

[tommyjones1978]

sorry..but you are an ignorant you know why?

did u know Napolion? Ok is inteligence was massive, and did you know is favorite game? YES chess!! Im not saying that Kasparov was the smartest guy on hearth im sayng that Kasparov is smarter in tactic skills and intelectual then the engeniers that built the "blue".

The question is:

Engeniers = read a lot of books and learn from sources like Kasparov to win obstacles

Kasparov = is inteligent by is own, not created reading books or something like that!

[LegendSaber]

I love your logic. It's so unintentionally hilarious.

Isn't a whole lot more left for me to say here, really. Carry on.

[tommyjones1978]

sorry but ive to correct onde thing: in the biggining of the movie it says "... Kasparov is fighting not a computer but people inteligente like him that made the computer..."

wrong because Kasparov is more inteligent because is fighting against a computer in the first place, a computer made by many inteligent people, so at the end Kasparov is the most inteligent on hearth!! because is brain is = to many inteligents engeniers and a powerfull computer!!

:) Agree??

[LegendSaber]

That's absurd. Being able to play chess well isn't intelligence. The engineers who built and designed Deep Blue and other chess playing machines are better than Kasparov by every measure of intellect.

[tommyjones1978]

Not agree at all: tell me then why? give your arguments?? or you dont have them??

[LegendSaber]

What arguments am I supposed to give? Your premise doesn't even make sense. You're saying Kasparov is the most intelligent person on the planet because he's willing to battle a computer in chess. A computer he couldn't even BEAT at that very game.

He's achieved absolutely ZERO intellectual pursuits aside from moving chess pieces about a board, and doing it not even as well as a computer can.

If you genuinely think that's intellect, then I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

[tommyjones1978]

As i see you dont know, the big blue was learning from him, his moves, his tactic, the big blue and all the engeniers from IBM they all learn from Kasparov, off course they dont learn engeniering they learn tactical mind, and intelectual inteligence transfered to a chess game!!

They all learn how to beat him, and they lost and you know why? because was not them that beat Kasparov, was the machine (with Kasparov skills inputed by the engeniers) that beat him!

And thats is a fact!!

[LegendSaber]

It was directly noted that they learned from a very wide variety of chess grandmasters that may or may not have included Kasparov.

Even in that event, Kasparov's only intellectual skill is chess. And if you genuinely believe being good at chess makes you 'the smartest person on the planet,' then no offense, but you're a deluded idiot.

[tommyjones1978]

agree????