@ll1lI Possibly....and I tend to be suspect of Benjamin's character based on a number of other things he has done. However I have suspicions that Gary MIGHT have thrown the game for a share of the profits IBM stock massively generated after this event.
Look at the remainder of the games after game 3....just doesn't look like Gary's normal play.
Ever turn deep blue would calculate for 3 minutes, analyzing a minimum of 36 billion moves before making a decision. It would also calculate during Kasparov's turn, and every single opening, and every endgame position conceivable were loaded into the memory of Deep Blue. Hundred of millions of endgame possibilities, completely outlined with perfect play. My only question is: How did Kasparov even win a game against this monster??? That is impressive!
@analyticannoyance Indeed! The fact that a human mind can even aproach these analytical, tactical (even now positional) monsters is incredible. I consider it a personal victory if I can make it to 50 moves against Rybka.
Kasparov was the BEST human ever played the game. If there wasn't psychological pressure created by the controversy, he could have won or drawn the match. Still, Kasparov holds an overall positive score against Deep Blue.
@NewVahan2011 I agree Kasparov should of won in 1997, but it is unfair to say he has an overall positive score. Deep blue changed a lot between 96 and 97, sure kasparov changed too, but not the same way.
Yea yea, so what? He lost, big deal! It is a damn computer against a human being. And think about it, Garry had already won some games against Deep Blue. I totally with Garry when he said they cheated because they had to make the computer at its strongest in order to win the guy...can you say cheap? Because that's cheap!
If you analyze the previous games you can see that certainly Kasparov could win the competition but in the final game he just played a wrong opening! This victory prove almost nothing about the mastery of Deep Blue at that time.
I think its quite incredible that Kasparov could challenge a machine that can simulate 200 million moves per second. This victory proves nothing, just the amazing parallel processor capacity. It seems there isn't any advanced AI there.
I have another one for you. Man versus Industrial Chainsaw. Kinda feels like cheating, doesn't it? This is like a 9 year old challenging the greatest mathematician in the world with a calculator. Next time I'm showing up in a marathon on a sports bike.
It would have been interested to see how other high ranking players would do? For all I know it could have been some commercial stunt from IBM....why would IBM invest millions of dollars in developing a chess game anyway, play it once (twice) and dismantle the project? Weaponize chess software...for strategic appliances maybe? Its a corrupt world...
@Za7a7aZ IBM had achieved their goal. They beat the world champion with the technology they had developed. It was a huge PR statement. IBM stock skyrocketed after the match. A rematch would have been risking defeat.
Well, he did compete again with the computer, when it was much more powerful, and that was a tiebreaker. Its more like you are having a mental breakdown arguing with here..;-)
thts such bullshit they destroyed the machine after the games and garry wanted to see how it processed or somethin and it took ibm along time to show him and at tht point it could have been altered...why the fuck would ibm destroy somethin it took years to build and a fuckin shit load of money. ibm needed to win cause there sales woulda gone insane. its bullshit they cheated. after game 1 it was playin like 200million garrys
deep blue did not win "fairly". as the video states, the computer use "brute force". It is like 200 million Kasporovs, each assigned to think of a single possibility and then just select the best move from the resulting database. just an omnipotent cheat.
how do humans make brilliant rational choices based on very small information for complex stochastic problems? computer will only be as adaptable as their creators, humans have the ability to surpass their own limitations. it's magic.
200 million moves per second and it cant even play one game of checkers : ) Gary is the best that we know of now? But what if we had Fischer or Morphy back from the dead in their prime and updated with modern theory? Hell theres probably a boy somewhere in China that could beat the crap out of Deep Blue that never even got the chance to pick up a chess board
It’s been fourteen years since this match. Given the amazing rate of improvement in computing power and software in this time, I would like to know what the state-of-the-art is today. If Deep Blue could beat Kasparov fourteen years ago, surely no one would stand a chance against a modern supercomputer. Also, how would Deep Blue’s chess playing ability stack up against modern commercially available chess programs? Or even the chess program that ships with Windows 7.
"I would like to know what the state-of-the-art is today"
The state of the art is this: In a 10 match tournament where the computer plays the world champion and leads the black pieces minus a center pawn handicap every time, the result would be 10-0 for the computer.
And on Judgment Day, Bobby Fischer rose from the grave to defend mankind from the uprising of the monstrous chess machines and their brute force powers.
Was there a rematch in 1998? If not, why? Why did IBM retired Deep Blue? what was the reason behind it? If Deep Blue really won the game legitimately, why was it not distributed to the public to be a training software for chess aspirants?
The answer is a simple word, "FRAUD".
IBM didn't want anyone to know what was going on behind Deep Blue. Why and how did it played so differently after game 1.
There is no such thing as a "Software Learning from its own mistake". Not even now (2011).
@tweakmeup1 If Gary Kasparov played against a Fritz or any other chess software at this time. He would surely be beaten, because of all the improvements in today's chess database.
But take out that database and those computer will never win against any Grand Master.
@tweakmeup1 do you have any idea how significant predicting millions of moves berfore hand is in chess? Deep Blue was able to explore 200,000,000 positions per second. Incidentally, Garry Kasparov can examine approximately three positions per second. you don't need to be a genius to see why garry lost. and most modern video games have advanced ai that adapt to your playing style. go play mortal kombat to see what i mean.
@myco578 the number of possible moves is chess can accumulate up to 10 to the 128th power. If you know your math, 200,000,000 moves is just a small fraction of it.
If you think that Deep Blue is a legitimate scientific break through that it clams to be, where are the documentations of this software? Are there any printouts of its log files? Where are the source codes that will justify the algorithms used for its calculations?
@tweakmeup1 i was using mortal kombat (i was talking about the recent remake btw) as an example of learning ai. there are plenty of other open source robots and ai programs alike that are capable of learning on the fly. the world no longer needs deep blue. as the video states, go pick up a copy of fritz 10, or chess master. set these chess games to the highest difficulty.
@myco578 Learning means acquiring something on it's own, that wasn't there before.
AI's like Mortal Kombat had been programmed to adjust to different play-style. When one style is not effective enough, it will try another play-style and another until it beats you.
For people that had limited knowledge of AI, it would seem as if, it is learning how to beat you. But in reality it doesn't. It's has been programmed to do just that. AI's will never do something that it's not programmed to.
@tweakmeup1 there are learning ai open source robots. like icub or the robots being constructed by Alexander Stoytchev and his crew. they learn on their past mistakes and actively try new aproaches they were not programed to do.
@myco578 BTW, I already have Fritz12 and ChessmasterIX. And I bet Deep Blue will never Beat any of them. Fritz12 and ChessmasterIX are Legit's man. Deep Blue is NOTHING.
If Deep Blue is no longer need, Why was Deep Blue Junior developed?
Oh yeah, right! The world no longer needs a FRAUD Scientific Breakthrough! IT NEVER NEED ONE ANYWAY!
@tweakmeup1 your missing the point. if Kasparov tried these new chess games he would still lose. is it that hard for you to accept that similer games were developed in the early 90's using similer techniques as the ones developed now?
@myco578 This could be the great scientific breakthrough in Information Technology!
But with IBM's refutation in making claims like this...Without any proper documentation released to the public to support their claims, like what they did with Deep Blue, I'm still skeptical about it. It might just be another "IBM says"!
200 million moves every second, it doesnt feel emotion so doesnt get threatend, it doesnt panic.. it has learnt from the grandmasters... so dont feel to bad loosing to a computer! :)
arimaa is an interesting game invented to challenge programmers to create software that can beat the best human players. Anyone that can do so will win more than £10'000. The challenge has been held yearly since about 2002 and technology is yet to better people because in arimaa it is extremely difficult to brute force the game.
Ray Kurzweil forcasted the year that computers would beat the greatest chess champions by looking at the exponential trends in computing power. By 2029, AI will be created. IBM reckons that it will have the raw processing power to simulate the neo cortex by 2020, and Jeff Hawkins is developing a theory of intelligence.
@rata1r We do use 100% of our brains, just not all the time. Different parts of our brain do different things, for example some parts deal with emotion, others memory, others motor movement etc. So yes we use 100% of our brains just not all the time as that wouldn't make any difference to intellectual performance
The computer fucked with his mind, period. That's why he lost. And his ego wouldn't accept a defeat. Now Kasparov can buy a pocket Fritz and get his ass kicked.
@Apjooz Your are full of it..!!! First of all they probably "cheated", and also, what does the computer have in advantage, hhhmmm let me think, maybe 1000 years of knowledge that players have developed thru the centuries. They feed the machine with this, and voila!!!...of course in the end the computer has great advantage. Than we have all the human prone errors. I guess how many "mistakes" those IBM guys made before they made this.....;-)
p.s. Also Kasparov did beat the machine 6 years later..!
@Apjooz LOL, you are a funny guy. Did they test him for stimulants...he he? Great argument there. Just accept it. IBM probably bend the rules a little bit, on top of all the knowledge that has been developed in chess over 1000 years, that they put into the computer. If chess had been forgotten game, and not so theory had been developed, it would have been interesting to see. The only advantage the computer has is great calculating capability, and nerves of "steel", or silicon...;-)
It's not a good argument because I implied Kasparov might have cheated. What is yours or Kasparov's? Oh yeah, computer made one! (1!) move that was "suscpicious". You can soooo tell from one move that it wasn't made by a computer. Kasparov broke down mentally and I don't know if he ever recovered. With his extacy use and all.
@botvinik10 Read my comment before troll. Chess is a simple computation game. Deep blue was only meant to play chess. He did not have a memory bank that told him what rules to follow. Simply computation and looking many moves ahead.
@Apjooz Yes. You are right, especially from the standpoint of today's powerful processors. But, In 1997 it really did take a very special, super fast, 256 processor, single purpose, massive hardware solution to get the job done.
With modern chess engines your smart phone can beat most grandmasters.
@TugTheWonderDog No chess engine today calculates more moves per second then Deep Blue. The algorithms are just much more sophisticated, and make much better choices in where to look. In the case of the grandmaster being beat by a smartphone, that phone could calculate at most 200 000 moves per second, probably closer to 20 000. This is an order of 1000-10 000 TIMES less then deep blue. (Just rather then brute force, they use better ideas)
@analyticannoyance Yes, though approaches to chess programming still vary somewhere between brute force and highly tuned evaluations, the stronger engines do use very sophisticated heuristics methods and algorithmic game-tree pruning.
Though, there are still interesting variations to the position evaluation algorithm. I have a 1-cpu engine that stomps other 8 cpu engines by employing a more sophisticated evaluation, beating its 8cpu foes who are calculating way more nodes per second.
@botvinik10 Actually, the computer determined it's moves by looking ahead, which is how chess is played. Programming isn't magic where you can magically type in what you want the computer to do and expect it to follow through. It's hard. And Kasparov never played Deep Blue AGAIN. Troll
But we all know this actually forms part of chess mythology, because IBM immediately dismantled Deep Blue after that match and nobody has been able to check anything about it....
Unlike humans computers cannot make mistakes. Which is their weakness, humans can make bad moves while the computer won't. We can bait the computer in one move that would look in his favor but in reality its just to make that bad move a good one with skillful playing. Playing the computer as we would a human is why GM's have problems with it. We think logically, the computer thinks even more logically.
Humans ability to define the potential issue of AI dominating humanity is the very reason why it will never happen. To avoid this domination we will merge with robot/AI instead to become universal cyborgs. This is described by Kurzweil as Singularity.
Garry played computers much better than this one to a draw. This was a very fishy match with the computer declining a three pawn advantage for position at one point. The computer was dismantled so we could never see what was in it. Human plus computer tourneys show that the combination of human and computer is much more formidible than either on their own. It is likely this combination that Gary was facing during this match.
@infidel2 Sweet! I just got exposed to my first Chess related conspiracy theory. I'm going to go smoke cigarettes and lobotomize myself with a bottle of whiskey, cheers!
@nikepumps123 , no, deep blue didn't just recycle old chess matches. It utilized human play history for increased forethought along with the act of playing via artificial intelligence. The AI can and does examine a multitude of moves and their possible response and outcomes and selects the best, just like a human does. However, for a shortcut in processing and for a bit of insight into the human mind, historical chess data is needed too, again just like a human chess player.
@MrJuno6 They were only allowed to tweak its programming between game matches, not during. The actual AI was the one choosing the moves, the tweaks were only to the AI between games, which isn't really cheating at all.
@JOTTABYTE Surrendering in a game in which you overlook a draw opportunity is still a loss. It was in game two that Deep Blue 2.0 made an unpredictable move that completely frazzled Kasparov. In game six, Kasparov saw that he could no longer out-think Deep Blue, so he gave up.
Kasparov proved himself human: giving up out of exhaustion, acknowledging a loss before it becomes apparent.
The fact that Deep Blue was "tweaked" by GMs and programmers throughout the match makes this a joke, nothing but an advertising scam by IBM. All real chess players know this.
deep blue wasnt really 'playing' chess i would argue. playing requires thought and innovation. the computer 'recycled' thousands of old matches with similiar positions it was confronted with and chose the best move bast on past results. its hard to argue that it did anything more than what any human could do, just infinitely faster.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
THIS IS JEWISH PLOT..kasparov took 200 Million $ for losing with Deep Blue...This is what Jewish cocksuckers are doing, they are brainwashing humans into to believing that Machines are smarter than them,then Jews will kill all gentiles and replace them with Machines..and jews will rule
@Rohitamlekar Watson cannot 'think'. He can recall information and utilise it, but we're still quite a long way away from computers actually being able to reason and consider ideas. We're even further from those computers creating ideas of their own.
@Rohitamlekar Watson can't think, lol. It works the same way as Deep Blue. It looks up word associations and weighs the best moves, or in this case, choices. It only appears to speak because of its advanced text-to-speech technology. It works on the same principals as Deep Blue. However, computers that CAN think are about 34 years away!
ladies and gentlemen....the day most thought would never come has done just that. watson, don't you go falling into the wrong heads and/or start thinkin you're better than us. we made you, we can damn sure destroy you. no skynet. thank you.
Well, obviously if it took about 50 of them to beat Kasparov, THEY ARE NOT AS BRILLIANT AS HE IS. Kasparov is perhaps the most brilliant mind the game of chess has ever witnessed.
@Airclot As my biology book says "Humans create their own artificial evolution." If we need to live on the ocean we build boats. If we need to go to another area fast, we build cars, if we need to fly over an area, we build planes, if we need to hunt, we build guns.
Our intelligence is far more important than genetic evolution, as long as our brain functions; we don't need to evolve to live.
Our minds really arent evolving that much. The chess players of the 1800's Morphy, Anderssen etc. Are all just as good as Kasparov is now. The difference is Kasparov has had over a 100 years of book theory and technology to advance his game. Our technology we have today is all because it has been accumulated over a period of time to reach where we are. Im not seeing any significant increase in our minds processing. We still dont know how they built the pyramids.
what are some of the songs used for this video, anyone know ?
SophistAtheist 2 days ago
deep blue vs deep blue would always be a draw? :)
christiaan81music 1 week ago
The computer ist dumb but damn fast...
TheGreenchiller 1 week ago
Ray Kurzweil predicted this would happen to the year that it happened.
Kitsunenomen 3 weeks ago
Wow. People just can't believe that a machine that analyzes 200 MILLION MOVES PER SECOND can beat a human.
SamuelKGB 3 weeks ago
Joel Benjamin makes me sick.
The bishop move was not made by deep blue's program.
ll1lI 4 weeks ago
@ll1lI I hope one day they'll admit what they did...
OSCARA320 4 weeks ago
@ll1lI Possibly....and I tend to be suspect of Benjamin's character based on a number of other things he has done. However I have suspicions that Gary MIGHT have thrown the game for a share of the profits IBM stock massively generated after this event.
Look at the remainder of the games after game 3....just doesn't look like Gary's normal play.
TugTheWonderDog 3 weeks ago
SKY NET
k4n3 1 month ago
Ever turn deep blue would calculate for 3 minutes, analyzing a minimum of 36 billion moves before making a decision. It would also calculate during Kasparov's turn, and every single opening, and every endgame position conceivable were loaded into the memory of Deep Blue. Hundred of millions of endgame possibilities, completely outlined with perfect play. My only question is: How did Kasparov even win a game against this monster??? That is impressive!
analyticannoyance 1 month ago 2
@analyticannoyance Indeed! The fact that a human mind can even aproach these analytical, tactical (even now positional) monsters is incredible. I consider it a personal victory if I can make it to 50 moves against Rybka.
TugTheWonderDog 1 month ago
@analyticannoyance
Kasparov was the BEST human ever played the game. If there wasn't psychological pressure created by the controversy, he could have won or drawn the match. Still, Kasparov holds an overall positive score against Deep Blue.
NewVahan2011 1 month ago
@NewVahan2011 I agree Kasparov should of won in 1997, but it is unfair to say he has an overall positive score. Deep blue changed a lot between 96 and 97, sure kasparov changed too, but not the same way.
analyticannoyance 1 month ago
Oops, I mean "totally agree"
ick709 1 month ago
Yea yea, so what? He lost, big deal! It is a damn computer against a human being. And think about it, Garry had already won some games against Deep Blue. I totally with Garry when he said they cheated because they had to make the computer at its strongest in order to win the guy...can you say cheap? Because that's cheap!
ick709 1 month ago
If you analyze the previous games you can see that certainly Kasparov could win the competition but in the final game he just played a wrong opening! This victory prove almost nothing about the mastery of Deep Blue at that time.
archmojtabasamimi 1 month ago
Comment removed
NewVahan2011 1 month ago
my laptop can think of around 2-3 billion moves a second >.>
lanarkgrammersucks 2 months ago
@hector9462 No need. After the match it was dismantled.
Badgaldinger 2 months ago
I think its quite incredible that Kasparov could challenge a machine that can simulate 200 million moves per second. This victory proves nothing, just the amazing parallel processor capacity. It seems there isn't any advanced AI there.
pLuisBR 2 months ago
I have another one for you. Man versus Industrial Chainsaw. Kinda feels like cheating, doesn't it? This is like a 9 year old challenging the greatest mathematician in the world with a calculator. Next time I'm showing up in a marathon on a sports bike.
system3142 2 months ago
how about quantic chess computers, anyway, humain brain is infinitly better then those programs because it's humain brain that created those programs
brahim121985brahim 2 months ago
kill that computer, it going to rise agaist the human!!.
hector9462 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
KASPAROV FOR PRESIDENT!!
hopge1 3 months ago
It would have been interested to see how other high ranking players would do? For all I know it could have been some commercial stunt from IBM....why would IBM invest millions of dollars in developing a chess game anyway, play it once (twice) and dismantle the project? Weaponize chess software...for strategic appliances maybe? Its a corrupt world...
Za7a7aZ 3 months ago
@Za7a7aZ IBM had achieved their goal. They beat the world champion with the technology they had developed. It was a huge PR statement. IBM stock skyrocketed after the match. A rematch would have been risking defeat.
TugTheWonderDog 1 month ago
@MrAlexanderBorup lol computers do clear minefields already....
kajakpaddler92 3 months ago
@MrAlexanderBorup much easier than a game like chess.
lolshitty 3 months ago
why doesn't kasparov ask for a rematch?
SCEPCOP 3 months ago
@SCEPCOP He asked but IMB declined.
DeTaPix 3 months ago
@DeTaPix why? some special reason?
OSCARA320 2 months ago
The music is creepy.
Linkage1992 3 months ago
Well, he did compete again with the computer, when it was much more powerful, and that was a tiebreaker. Its more like you are having a mental breakdown arguing with here..;-)
botvinik10 3 months ago
thts such bullshit they destroyed the machine after the games and garry wanted to see how it processed or somethin and it took ibm along time to show him and at tht point it could have been altered...why the fuck would ibm destroy somethin it took years to build and a fuckin shit load of money. ibm needed to win cause there sales woulda gone insane. its bullshit they cheated. after game 1 it was playin like 200million garrys
alxtag 3 months ago
terminator
CyberVsWolverine 4 months ago
lol 256 processors, someone should do that now using all hex-cores clocked over 4ghz
GMSamuelRhine 4 months ago
Comment removed
GMSamuelRhine 4 months ago
deep blue did not win "fairly". as the video states, the computer use "brute force". It is like 200 million Kasporovs, each assigned to think of a single possibility and then just select the best move from the resulting database. just an omnipotent cheat.
how do humans make brilliant rational choices based on very small information for complex stochastic problems? computer will only be as adaptable as their creators, humans have the ability to surpass their own limitations. it's magic.
MustNotRead 4 months ago 3
@MustNotRead
I'd say it was as fair as a computer versus human could be for Chess.
Usul573 2 months ago
2 million moves a second? I can't even think of 10 moves in 5 seconds.
MrGustavoGuerrero 4 months ago 23
@MrGustavoGuerrero Actually... it's 200 million moves per second...:)
Eustake 4 months ago 34
@Eustake
200 million moves per second and it cant even play one game of checkers : ) Gary is the best that we know of now? But what if we had Fischer or Morphy back from the dead in their prime and updated with modern theory? Hell theres probably a boy somewhere in China that could beat the crap out of Deep Blue that never even got the chance to pick up a chess board
willsmackyoudown 2 weeks ago
It’s been fourteen years since this match. Given the amazing rate of improvement in computing power and software in this time, I would like to know what the state-of-the-art is today. If Deep Blue could beat Kasparov fourteen years ago, surely no one would stand a chance against a modern supercomputer. Also, how would Deep Blue’s chess playing ability stack up against modern commercially available chess programs? Or even the chess program that ships with Windows 7.
punchthedog 5 months ago
@punchthedog fritz at its highest difficulty level is unbeatable for a human, and deep blue had no chance at all.
tobias7777777 4 months ago
@tobias7777777
fritz does not think like a human. its a cheater.
MustNotRead 4 months ago
@MustNotRead i never said so
tobias7777777 4 months ago
@punchthedog
"I would like to know what the state-of-the-art is today"
The state of the art is this: In a 10 match tournament where the computer plays the world champion and leads the black pieces minus a center pawn handicap every time, the result would be 10-0 for the computer.
viharsarok 4 months ago
@punchthedog
Supercomputers are easily over 100 times as powerful now, so I'm curious.
Usul573 2 months ago
Remember when Kubrick took IBM, and translated its letters back in the alphabet to make HAL? And then HAL beat a man at chess in the movie in 1968?
I was always glad to see that IBM took it upon themselves to make sure things came full circle.
cammcgra 5 months ago
4:29 - 4:50 heartbreaking moment
Brugality 5 months ago
I think its more a mathematic game...So computer can win
Wisdombluetooth 6 months ago
And on Judgment Day, Bobby Fischer rose from the grave to defend mankind from the uprising of the monstrous chess machines and their brute force powers.
scampbl 6 months ago 2
Was there a rematch in 1998? If not, why? Why did IBM retired Deep Blue? what was the reason behind it? If Deep Blue really won the game legitimately, why was it not distributed to the public to be a training software for chess aspirants?
The answer is a simple word, "FRAUD".
IBM didn't want anyone to know what was going on behind Deep Blue. Why and how did it played so differently after game 1.
There is no such thing as a "Software Learning from its own mistake". Not even now (2011).
tweakmeup1 6 months ago 3
@tweakmeup1 If Gary Kasparov played against a Fritz or any other chess software at this time. He would surely be beaten, because of all the improvements in today's chess database.
But take out that database and those computer will never win against any Grand Master.
tweakmeup1 6 months ago
@tweakmeup1 do you have any idea how significant predicting millions of moves berfore hand is in chess? Deep Blue was able to explore 200,000,000 positions per second. Incidentally, Garry Kasparov can examine approximately three positions per second. you don't need to be a genius to see why garry lost. and most modern video games have advanced ai that adapt to your playing style. go play mortal kombat to see what i mean.
myco578 6 months ago
@myco578 the number of possible moves is chess can accumulate up to 10 to the 128th power. If you know your math, 200,000,000 moves is just a small fraction of it.
If you think that Deep Blue is a legitimate scientific break through that it clams to be, where are the documentations of this software? Are there any printouts of its log files? Where are the source codes that will justify the algorithms used for its calculations?
tweakmeup1 5 months ago
@myco578 You make me laugh when you try to compare mortal kombat to a computer program that claims to beat the world champion in 1997.
First of all. It only took 2hrs for my 12y/o brother to learn to beat all the AI's in mortal kombat. Is that the AI you want to compare?
Second, can you imagine playing mortal combat during 1997 compared to now (2011)?
Third, mortal kombat has a source code, Deep Blue has none.
Fourth, you don't need to go to IBM just to play mortal kombat.
I can still go on....
tweakmeup1 5 months ago
@tweakmeup1 i was using mortal kombat (i was talking about the recent remake btw) as an example of learning ai. there are plenty of other open source robots and ai programs alike that are capable of learning on the fly. the world no longer needs deep blue. as the video states, go pick up a copy of fritz 10, or chess master. set these chess games to the highest difficulty.
myco578 5 months ago
@myco578 Learning means acquiring something on it's own, that wasn't there before.
AI's like Mortal Kombat had been programmed to adjust to different play-style. When one style is not effective enough, it will try another play-style and another until it beats you.
For people that had limited knowledge of AI, it would seem as if, it is learning how to beat you. But in reality it doesn't. It's has been programmed to do just that. AI's will never do something that it's not programmed to.
tweakmeup1 5 months ago
@tweakmeup1 there are learning ai open source robots. like icub or the robots being constructed by Alexander Stoytchev and his crew. they learn on their past mistakes and actively try new aproaches they were not programed to do.
myco578 5 months ago
@myco578 BTW, I already have Fritz12 and ChessmasterIX. And I bet Deep Blue will never Beat any of them. Fritz12 and ChessmasterIX are Legit's man. Deep Blue is NOTHING.
If Deep Blue is no longer need, Why was Deep Blue Junior developed?
Oh yeah, right! The world no longer needs a FRAUD Scientific Breakthrough! IT NEVER NEED ONE ANYWAY!
tweakmeup1 5 months ago
@tweakmeup1 your missing the point. if Kasparov tried these new chess games he would still lose. is it that hard for you to accept that similer games were developed in the early 90's using similer techniques as the ones developed now?
myco578 5 months ago
@myco578 i doubt that i.e chessmaster 9000 would stand any chances against kasparov
xismxist 5 months ago
@myco578 search this video, you'll learn more... Authors@Google: Garry Kasparov
tweakmeup1 5 months ago
@tweakmeup1 oh yea, and one more thing about learning ai
popsci. com/technology/article/2011-08/first-generation-cognitive-chips-based-brain-architecture-will-revolutionize-computing-ibm-says
myco578 5 months ago
@myco578 This could be the great scientific breakthrough in Information Technology!
But with IBM's refutation in making claims like this...Without any proper documentation released to the public to support their claims, like what they did with Deep Blue, I'm still skeptical about it. It might just be another "IBM says"!
tweakmeup1 5 months ago
@tweakmeup1 lol kasparov lost get over it fan boy.
catalinaguerrero 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tweakmeup1 "why was it not distributed to the public to be a training software for chess aspirants?"
Because it wasn't just a software but also a very expensive hardware, idiot.
"There is no such thing as a "Software Learning from its own mistake". Not even now (2011)."
Yeah boy, like you have any idea about software.
viharsarok 4 months ago
Comment removed
tweakmeup1 6 months ago
Comment removed
tweakmeup1 6 months ago
200 million moves every second, it doesnt feel emotion so doesnt get threatend, it doesnt panic.. it has learnt from the grandmasters... so dont feel to bad loosing to a computer! :)
mrhotmale99 6 months ago
Deep blue vs. Magnus Carlsen... Dun dun dunnnnn
CountForeshadow 6 months ago
deep blue-supercomputer
watson-skynet
zingzongbangzong 6 months ago
@zingzongbangzong yeah watson reminds you of skynet and j-day. lets hope it doesn't come to that.
napotterbond 6 months ago
one word. pressure.
25redzombie 6 months ago
computers don't get tired like a human.
babykevinxoxo 6 months ago
@babykevinxoxo haha lol
Garry: cant... move... hand... too... tired...
iflifegivesyoumelon1 6 months ago
@iflifegivesyoumelon1 He's obviously talking about being mentally tired, you silly goose. :3
Menegoth 5 months ago
@Menegoth lawlz i know i was just beeing a r'tard
iflifegivesyoumelon1 5 months ago
Fuck machines
raducracan 6 months ago
26 people lost to Deep Blue.
bobstevefrank123 6 months ago
If Deep Blue would have lost the last match, it would take over the world cos its angry.
sangolt88 7 months ago 2
arimaa is an interesting game invented to challenge programmers to create software that can beat the best human players. Anyone that can do so will win more than £10'000. The challenge has been held yearly since about 2002 and technology is yet to better people because in arimaa it is extremely difficult to brute force the game.
littleliuboy 7 months ago
humans still rule on the game of GO.
fight2Bfree 7 months ago
Ray Kurzweil forcasted the year that computers would beat the greatest chess champions by looking at the exponential trends in computing power. By 2029, AI will be created. IBM reckons that it will have the raw processing power to simulate the neo cortex by 2020, and Jeff Hawkins is developing a theory of intelligence.
The future will be different. No, really.
spacecowboy95 7 months ago
oh man if we humans could use 100% of our brain, computers would lose everytime
rata1r 7 months ago 2
@rata1r We do use 100% of our brains, just not all the time. Different parts of our brain do different things, for example some parts deal with emotion, others memory, others motor movement etc. So yes we use 100% of our brains just not all the time as that wouldn't make any difference to intellectual performance
littleliuboy 7 months ago 2
so how much RAM did Deep Blue have?
Terrystearsatlfc 7 months ago
The Computer can NEVER replace the compassion and guts that every human has. NEVER (epic echo)...ever....ever...
siiver7 7 months ago
We're fucked lol
Dolphidood 8 months ago
this is bullshit, kasparov asked for a rematch and ibm fuckin dismantled deep blue
-.-
fr1x 8 months ago
@fr1x
The computer fucked with his mind, period. That's why he lost. And his ego wouldn't accept a defeat. Now Kasparov can buy a pocket Fritz and get his ass kicked.
Apjooz 8 months ago 21
@Apjooz lmao!!!!!!!!!!!
GMSamuelRhine 4 months ago
@Apjooz Your are full of it..!!! First of all they probably "cheated", and also, what does the computer have in advantage, hhhmmm let me think, maybe 1000 years of knowledge that players have developed thru the centuries. They feed the machine with this, and voila!!!...of course in the end the computer has great advantage. Than we have all the human prone errors. I guess how many "mistakes" those IBM guys made before they made this.....;-)
p.s. Also Kasparov did beat the machine 6 years later..!
botvinik10 3 months ago
@botvinik10
Did they test Kasparov for stimulants? If not, I have as much grounds to say Kasparov cheated as Kasparov is to say IBM cheated.
It's not that hard to beat a human because like you said, computer has so many advantages over human.
Apjooz 3 months ago
@Apjooz LOL, you are a funny guy. Did they test him for stimulants...he he? Great argument there. Just accept it. IBM probably bend the rules a little bit, on top of all the knowledge that has been developed in chess over 1000 years, that they put into the computer. If chess had been forgotten game, and not so theory had been developed, it would have been interesting to see. The only advantage the computer has is great calculating capability, and nerves of "steel", or silicon...;-)
botvinik10 3 months ago
@botvinik10
It's not a good argument because I implied Kasparov might have cheated. What is yours or Kasparov's? Oh yeah, computer made one! (1!) move that was "suscpicious". You can soooo tell from one move that it wasn't made by a computer. Kasparov broke down mentally and I don't know if he ever recovered. With his extacy use and all.
Apjooz 3 months ago
@botvinik10 Read my comment before troll. Chess is a simple computation game. Deep blue was only meant to play chess. He did not have a memory bank that told him what rules to follow. Simply computation and looking many moves ahead.
ModelbuildingTANKS 3 months ago
@Apjooz Yes. You are right, especially from the standpoint of today's powerful processors. But, In 1997 it really did take a very special, super fast, 256 processor, single purpose, massive hardware solution to get the job done.
With modern chess engines your smart phone can beat most grandmasters.
TugTheWonderDog 1 month ago
@TugTheWonderDog No chess engine today calculates more moves per second then Deep Blue. The algorithms are just much more sophisticated, and make much better choices in where to look. In the case of the grandmaster being beat by a smartphone, that phone could calculate at most 200 000 moves per second, probably closer to 20 000. This is an order of 1000-10 000 TIMES less then deep blue. (Just rather then brute force, they use better ideas)
analyticannoyance 1 month ago
@analyticannoyance Yes, though approaches to chess programming still vary somewhere between brute force and highly tuned evaluations, the stronger engines do use very sophisticated heuristics methods and algorithmic game-tree pruning.
Though, there are still interesting variations to the position evaluation algorithm. I have a 1-cpu engine that stomps other 8 cpu engines by employing a more sophisticated evaluation, beating its 8cpu foes who are calculating way more nodes per second.
TugTheWonderDog 1 month ago
@botvinik10 Actually, the computer determined it's moves by looking ahead, which is how chess is played. Programming isn't magic where you can magically type in what you want the computer to do and expect it to follow through. It's hard. And Kasparov never played Deep Blue AGAIN. Troll
ModelbuildingTANKS 3 months ago
The masterer beat both these guys with a row of pawns and a single bishop.
crackerz99 8 months ago
But we all know this actually forms part of chess mythology, because IBM immediately dismantled Deep Blue after that match and nobody has been able to check anything about it....
Gaussdxdydz 8 months ago
Deep Blue: Skynet's 1st step to human erradication
Painkiller1189 8 months ago 3
Chuck Norris would beat him in chess with his eyes closed
NFali02 8 months ago 2
Advertised as "man vs machine", and then at the game there's those flags? Ballsy statement; IBM must have been REALLY confident they would win
snehesten 8 months ago
Unlike humans computers cannot make mistakes. Which is their weakness, humans can make bad moves while the computer won't. We can bait the computer in one move that would look in his favor but in reality its just to make that bad move a good one with skillful playing. Playing the computer as we would a human is why GM's have problems with it. We think logically, the computer thinks even more logically.
kikook222 8 months ago
molly sent me here
randomname123ish 9 months ago
In the 6th game, Kasparov made a stupid decision and played a crazy gambit and got his ass kicked.
jeffwads 9 months ago
@jeffwads are you sure...
RetroGamesDontStop 9 months ago
Very nice video. Thanks
SMCB285 9 months ago
well this was easier to accomplish they just needed processing space....just compute the trillions of move chains possible =P
Qwerty48121 9 months ago
People created a machine to beat russian :D
Kasparov was born to play ,machine was built to play :)
Kasparov himself is human android.
Kadagis7000 9 months ago
Now i have realized , y i m unable to beat windows 7 chess game in full difficulty mode :)))
usmanashrafkhan 9 months ago 3
Humans ability to define the potential issue of AI dominating humanity is the very reason why it will never happen. To avoid this domination we will merge with robot/AI instead to become universal cyborgs. This is described by Kurzweil as Singularity.
Arapidos 9 months ago
Garry played computers much better than this one to a draw. This was a very fishy match with the computer declining a three pawn advantage for position at one point. The computer was dismantled so we could never see what was in it. Human plus computer tourneys show that the combination of human and computer is much more formidible than either on their own. It is likely this combination that Gary was facing during this match.
infidel2 10 months ago
@infidel2 Sweet! I just got exposed to my first Chess related conspiracy theory. I'm going to go smoke cigarettes and lobotomize myself with a bottle of whiskey, cheers!
razzor7 9 months ago
@infidel2 BS.
MurdocLC 9 months ago
有名な対局でしたね。
orunitin 10 months ago
@nikepumps123 , no, deep blue didn't just recycle old chess matches. It utilized human play history for increased forethought along with the act of playing via artificial intelligence. The AI can and does examine a multitude of moves and their possible response and outcomes and selects the best, just like a human does. However, for a shortcut in processing and for a bit of insight into the human mind, historical chess data is needed too, again just like a human chess player.
jarrod1937 10 months ago
@MrJuno6 They were only allowed to tweak its programming between game matches, not during. The actual AI was the one choosing the moves, the tweaks were only to the AI between games, which isn't really cheating at all.
jarrod1937 10 months ago
that game - deep blue vs kasparov was just a scam
misterkefir 10 months ago
well... my windows 7 can play chess too and i always lose. why the hell do you need a huge supercomputer to play chess? :P
ussike22 10 months ago
@ussike22 I hope you're joking...
Dnizzle7 10 months ago
@ussike22 It was 1997, go figures.
lolipedofin 10 months ago
Surrendering in a game in which you overlook a draw opportunity is still a loss.
Maybe for the rest of the world but not for me! Making a mistake by move a piece or pawn is much worse!
For me computers really defeated humans in 2006 in the match between Kramnik and Fritz.
JOTTABYTE 10 months ago
gazarrocks
Yes yes fuck that! No one call deep blue from 1997 for deep blue 2.0. Even the title of this video does not mention 2.0!
First game: Kasparov won!
Second game: Kasparov did not lose. He gave up game 2 which was a mistake he overlooked the draw opportunity.
Third game: Draw.
Fourth game: Draw.
Fifth game: Draw.
Sixth game: Kasparov gave up in a position where deep blue have not a winning position!
JOTTABYTE 10 months ago
@JOTTABYTE Surrendering in a game in which you overlook a draw opportunity is still a loss. It was in game two that Deep Blue 2.0 made an unpredictable move that completely frazzled Kasparov. In game six, Kasparov saw that he could no longer out-think Deep Blue, so he gave up.
Kasparov proved himself human: giving up out of exhaustion, acknowledging a loss before it becomes apparent.
Ematched 10 months ago
We should have Computer against Computer!!!!!!!!!!!
BatNibbles 10 months ago
Skynet is getting faster, and smarter...
jaesungauzakim 10 months ago
IBM please build DEEP BLUE 2 !!
It will beat all the engines avaible today on PC !!
JOTTABYTE 10 months ago
@JOTTABYTE the one in 1996 was deep blue but the one in 1997 was deep blue 2.0 a.k.a. deeper blue
gozarrocks 10 months ago
The fact that Deep Blue was "tweaked" by GMs and programmers throughout the match makes this a joke, nothing but an advertising scam by IBM. All real chess players know this.
MrJuno6 10 months ago
100 million combinations of move for one sec???crazy machine,
czarnalama 11 months ago
Chess is an epic game.
JOTTABYTE 11 months ago
deep blue wasnt really 'playing' chess i would argue. playing requires thought and innovation. the computer 'recycled' thousands of old matches with similiar positions it was confronted with and chose the best move bast on past results. its hard to argue that it did anything more than what any human could do, just infinitely faster.
nikepumps123 11 months ago
when computers take over, we'll have only ourselves to blame.
Mr27ace27 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
THIS IS JEWISH PLOT..kasparov took 200 Million $ for losing with Deep Blue...This is what Jewish cocksuckers are doing, they are brainwashing humans into to believing that Machines are smarter than them,then Jews will kill all gentiles and replace them with Machines..and jews will rule
Fuck all those jewish bastards
xanaduisfaraway 11 months ago
@xanaduisfaraway you are pretty funny---I LOLed
mogem 10 months ago
@xanaduisfaraway lolwut??
lolipedofin 10 months ago
Aha, Watson can think! Not that far away then eh?
Rohitamlekar 11 months ago
Comment removed
hotelmario510 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rohitamlekar Watson cannot 'think'. He can recall information and utilise it, but we're still quite a long way away from computers actually being able to reason and consider ideas. We're even further from those computers creating ideas of their own.
hotelmario510 11 months ago
@Rohitamlekar Watson can't think, lol. It works the same way as Deep Blue. It looks up word associations and weighs the best moves, or in this case, choices. It only appears to speak because of its advanced text-to-speech technology. It works on the same principals as Deep Blue. However, computers that CAN think are about 34 years away!
dag101101 11 months ago
Aha, Watson can think!
Rohitamlekar 11 months ago
A STRANGE GAME. THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY.
HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?
hotelmario510 11 months ago
@hotelmario510 A "day in the life of a turret" reference?
zogisuber10 11 months ago
@zogisuber10 A WarGames reference, actually.
hotelmario510 11 months ago
Comment removed
hotelmario510 11 months ago
1997 - Deep Blue beats Kasparov
2011 - Watson wins Jeopardy
???? - First computer in US presidential debate!
Treblaine 11 months ago 2
Machines are only as smart as humans program them to be, go figure.
juliaisafilmbuff123 11 months ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 until they gain self awareness....
ryandrums1001 11 months ago
ladies and gentlemen....the day most thought would never come has done just that. watson, don't you go falling into the wrong heads and/or start thinkin you're better than us. we made you, we can damn sure destroy you. no skynet. thank you.
SMDB82 11 months ago
@SMDB82 and the redneck speaks
solikat 10 months ago
@solikat shouldn't insult yourself like that you fag
SMDB82 10 months ago
Kasparov looks like he was traumatized after the match.
23rdpsalm 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I hate 'thumbs up if'...posts, but....
THUMBS UP IF YOU WATCHED THIS BECAUSE OF THE IBM JEOPARDY CHALLENGE WITH WATSON!!!
mtf61291 11 months ago 113
@mtf61291 Yup, that's exactly why I came here....damn you! LoL
sw204me 11 months ago
@mtf61291 IBM is awesome lol.
Cubalisk 11 months ago
Well, obviously if it took about 50 of them to beat Kasparov, THEY ARE NOT AS BRILLIANT AS HE IS. Kasparov is perhaps the most brilliant mind the game of chess has ever witnessed.
International1ify 10 months ago
human is winning any way they made it.
xdeiri 11 months ago
What about Deep Blue vs another Deep Blue
sithlordsf 11 months ago 63
@sithlordsf How about Deep Blue vs. Watson.haha
sw204me 11 months ago 2
@sithlordsf the game would end before the first second :)
piano25 8 months ago
@sithlordsf that would be sick
toiletscrubbr 8 months ago
@sithlordsf deep blue wins
CapnSoviet 8 months ago
@sithlordsf think about it, if both programs play perfect it will be draw
chri8686 7 months ago
Human motto:
If we can't do it, we will build something that can do it!
Airclot 11 months ago 82
@Airclot Well thats a very good motto isn't it?
oscarnystedt 10 months ago
@Airclot TRUE TRUE LOL :))
Nightbaron61 10 months ago
@Airclot Amen Brother!
RsGhost1 9 months ago
@Airclot And humans will build it...still...
Arthounot 9 months ago
@Airclot As my biology book says "Humans create their own artificial evolution." If we need to live on the ocean we build boats. If we need to go to another area fast, we build cars, if we need to fly over an area, we build planes, if we need to hunt, we build guns.
Our intelligence is far more important than genetic evolution, as long as our brain functions; we don't need to evolve to live.
kikook222 8 months ago
@kikook222
Our minds really arent evolving that much. The chess players of the 1800's Morphy, Anderssen etc. Are all just as good as Kasparov is now. The difference is Kasparov has had over a 100 years of book theory and technology to advance his game. Our technology we have today is all because it has been accumulated over a period of time to reach where we are. Im not seeing any significant increase in our minds processing. We still dont know how they built the pyramids.
willsmackyoudown 7 months ago
It's Skynet people!!!
CODmaster6661 11 months ago