Kasparov loses to a computer

10 February, 1996: Chess champion Kasparov loses to a computer




On this day in 1996, after three hours, world chess champion Gary Kasparov loses the first game of a six-game match against Deep Blue, an IBM computer capable of evaluating 200 million moves per second. Man was ultimately victorious over machine, however, as Kasparov bested Deep Blue in the match with three wins and two ties and took home the $400,000 prize. An estimated 6 million people worldwide followed the action on the Internet.

Kasparov had previously defeated Deep Thought, the prototype for Deep Blue developed by IBM researchers in 1989, but he and other chess grandmasters had, on occasion, lost to computers in games that lasted an hour or less. The February 1996 contest was significant in that it represented the first time a human and a computer had duked it out in a regulation, six-game match, in which each player had two hours to make 40 moves, two hours to finish the next 20 moves and then another 60 minutes to wrap up the game.

Kasparov, who was born in 1963 in Baku, Azerbaijan, became the Soviet Union's junior chess champion at age 13 and in 1985, at age 22, the youngest world champ ever when he beat legendary Soviet player Anatoly Karpov. Considered by many to be the greatest chess player in the history of the game, Kasparov was known for his swashbuckling style of play and his ability to switch tactics mid-game.

In 1997, a rematch took place between Kasparov and an enhanced Deep Blue. Kasparov won the first game, the computer the second, with the next three games a draw. On 11 May 1997, Deep Blue came out on top with a surprising sixth game win - and the $700,000 match prize. In 2003, Kasparov battled another computer program, Deep Junior. The match ended in a tie. Kasparov retired from professional chess in 2005.
 
Guys, please be VERY polite with computers!
Just see:
10 February, 1996: Chess champion Kasparov loses a game to a computer, but wins the match.
29 August, 1997: "Skynet" computer launches a nuclear strike upon Russia, initiating a nuclear holocaust of mankind.
 
This week the popular game show Jeopardy is matching its 2 greatest champions against an IBM computer. Should be interesting to watch.
 
I read that chess-playing computers are only as good as the people who programmed them, because computers don't have the ability to think for themselves, so in that respect they're dumb.
For example look at the pic below and point at the aircraft with your finger, dead easy!
BUT A COMPUTER CAN'T DO THAT, it's just as likely to point at one of the decoy flares, duh...
Despite millions of dollars being poured into the development of small onboard computerised "brains" for SAMs and air-to-air missiles over the past 50 years, they still can't tell the difference between a plane and a small cheap decoy flare or chaff bundle, ha ha..:)

hornet-flares.jpg
 
I read that chess-playing computers are only as good as the people who programmed them, because computers don't have the ability to think for themselves, so in that respect they're dumb.

In that case programmers are the best chess players in the world :)

For example look at the pic below and point at the aircraft with your finger, dead easy!
BUT A COMPUTER CAN'T DO THAT, it's just as likely to point at one of the decoy flares, duh...

Actually they can. Image recognition is very advanced today. Even small processors in cameras can find human face, or any other shape in images of the real world.
 
I read that chess-playing computers are only as good as the people who programmed them, because computers don't have the ability to think for themselves, so in that respect they're dumb
In that case programmers are the best chess players in the world :)

They can program computers to play chess, but they can't make the computer think for itself.
For example you could teach a parrott to recite the bible, but that doesn't mean it understands a single word..:)



(re missile homing)- it's just as likely to point at one of the decoy flares, duh...
Actually they can (recognise planes). Image recognition is very advanced today. Even small processors in cameras can find human face, or any other shape in images of the real world.

If flares/chaff no longer decoy missiles, why do aircraft still use them? Don't swallow the propaganda put out by the big arms manufacturers to make their products sound better than they are.
As for my digicam locking onto peoples faces, it's quite impressive, but it sometimes locks onto something that ISN'T a face by mistake, which brings me back to what I said earlier, computers are dumb compared to the human brain..:)

PS- If computers are so smart, why don't we build one to run the world?
 
They can program computers to play chess, but they can't make the computer think for itself.

It is not important. Computational power is enough to beat human in that game, and thinking is nothing else than series of computations.

If flares/chaff no longer decoy missiles, why do aircraft still use them?

Because there are many dumb projectiles which can;'t tell the difference.

If computers are so smart, why don't we build one to run the world?

In the near future such computers will be available.
Even today great number of decisions is made with assistance of computer.
 
..Even today great number of decisions is made with assistance of computer.

Ah, that'd explain why the world is a mess!
And hey, we can all easily beat the computerised AI in any PC wargame including Combat Mission, it's as easy as taking candy from babies..:)
 
CM AI is ridiculous. It can not be taken for serious in any case, as well as other 'home' AI's.
 
The 'Deep Blue' computer may have beaten Kasparov at chess, but it'd be in deep sh*t if it ever tried to beat any of us at proper wargames..:)
 
Day when computers will be able to make their own decisions is very close.
At one point you will not be able to make difference between human and machine.
 
Back
Top Bottom