January 31, 2003

Can chess be exciting? Damn right it can be. Garry Kasparov and Deep Junior, the latest iteration in high powered chess playing machines, are tied at 1.5 points each after Deep Junior seized the moment to rally for a victory in Game Three. These vivid descriptions of the match make it as compelling an armchair sport as any, in my opinion. I believe that something will be lost from the game when Man can no longer beat Machine, but in their current state there are still some tactics where Man is far superior. Links via Robot Wisdom. Oh, and THIS is an excellent movie.

posted by vito90 to other at 09:10 AM - 11 comments

Wired News has an excellent article on the event as well as a live viewer (scroll down a little and look on the right of the page for "Tune In" -- Flash 6 required).

posted by worldcup2002 at 09:40 AM on January 31, 2003

Chess is as exciting as being stuck in rush hour traffic...

posted by StarFucker at 09:58 AM on January 31, 2003

Funny you should say that SF...lots of people say the same thing about soccer. I'm just yanking your chain, SF.

posted by grum@work at 11:00 AM on January 31, 2003

I'm willing to concede that "exciting" might be a strong word. But "compelling", certainly. Especially when it's described with the sheer enthusiasm of the men in the links.

posted by vito90 at 11:22 AM on January 31, 2003

How can you say that chess isn't exciting? Remember when Kasparov bodyslammed Bobby Fisher? That was pretty sweet.

posted by Samsonov14 at 11:37 AM on January 31, 2003

Yeah, but how could you blame Kasparov? Didn't Fischer call him a dirty commie Jew?

posted by vito90 at 11:50 AM on January 31, 2003

Chess is beautiful. It's the only game that doesn't involve any luck whatsoever. If you lose, it means that you were outsmarted. Period. If you win, it means that you outsmarted your opponent. Period. Name any other game or sport that does not involve any element of luck, and I'll do my best to prove you wrong.

posted by jacknose at 12:17 PM on January 31, 2003

Name any other game or sport that does not involve any element of luck, and I'll do my best to prove you wrong. How about: Go (considered even more challenging/skillful than chess. Reversi (or Othello, it's other name) Checkers Tic-tac-toe Obviously the last 3 are a bit simple, but Go definitely needs to be looked at as a contender for "most skillful".

posted by grum@work at 12:40 PM on January 31, 2003

I like eggs.

posted by StarFucker at 01:25 PM on January 31, 2003

Check this out for a discussion of the differences between creating a chess playing computer versus a Go playing computer. According to the article a computer currently could not play Go effectively because the catalog of opening moves is too vast. "On the chess board, you have 64 squares. On the go board, you have 361 squares. For a computer to do a complete search [of moves] involving 361 squares is currently impossible," While chess has many standard openings that can be "fed" to a computer for analysis, a go player can pretty much do anything he or she wants. There is no "encyclopedia of openings" such as any self-respecting chess player would study And then, this: "a few computerized go games do exist. How do the best of these compare to the top human players? When I asked Saheki this question, he picked up three magazines that were sitting on the coffee table between us. He put two of them next to each other. "This is a professional-level player," he said, pointing to the magazine on his left. "This is a top amateur-level player," he continued, pointing to the magazine on his right. "And the computer would be...." he proclaimed as he tossed the third magazine to his right halfway across the room, "there. Very, very, very weak." Of course the computer would not analyze all the squares, like Deep Junior it would discard a large number of them right off the bat that it deemed worthless.

posted by vito90 at 02:53 PM on January 31, 2003

Amazing ... it almost makes me want to put away my Mattel football game.

posted by wfrazerjr at 02:09 PM on February 06, 2003

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.