IBM denied this, stating that, in keeping with the rules, the only human intervention came between games to rectify bugs that had been identified during play. The conspiracists claimed that IBM had used human intervention during the match. That psychological advantage eventually wore Kasparov down.įrom the moment that Kasparov lost, speculation and conspiracy theories started. During the game, the computer used the position of having a potential open file to put pressure on Kasparov and force him into defending on every move.
DEEP BLUE CHESS GAME PLAY BY PLAY CODE
When the programmers learned this, they rewrote Deep Blue’s code to incorporate the moves. Instead, the tactic involved piling pieces onto the file and then choosing when to open it up. During training with the grand master Joel Benjamin, the Deep Blue team had learnt there was sometimes a more strategic option than opening a file and then moving a rook to it.
DEEP BLUE CHESS GAME PLAY BY PLAY FREE
This can create an attacking route, typically for rooks or queens, free from pawns blocking the way. The move was based on the strategic advantage that a player can gain from creating an open file, a column of squares on the board (as viewed from above) that contains no pieces. Worse still, he never recovered, drawing the next three games and then making the error that led to his demise in the final game. He was so perturbed that he eventually walked away, forfeiting the game. The move left Kasparov riled and ultimately thrown off his strategy. John Nunn, the English chess grandmaster, described it as “stunning” and “exceptional”. What surprised Kasparov was Deep Blue’s subsequent move. This was a tactic that Kasparov had used against human opponents in the past. Kasparov had played to encourage his opponent to take a “poisoned” pawn, a sacrificial piece positioned to entice the machine into making a fateful move. The basis of Kasparov’s claims went all the way back to a move the computer made in the second game of the match, the first in the competition that Deep Blue won. What started as student project, helped usher in the age of big data. The kind of vast data processing that Deep Blue relied on is now found in nearly every corner of our lives, from the financial systems that dominate the economy to online dating apps that try to find us the perfect partner. What the match did do, however, was signal the start of a societal shift that is gaining increasing speed and influence today. This wasn’t artificial (or real) intelligence that demonstrated our own creative style of thinking and learning, but the application of simple rules on a grand scale. Yet the reality was that Deep Blue’s victory was precisely because of its rigid, unhumanlike commitment to cold, hard logic in the face of Kasparov’s emotional behaviour. Listen to an audio version of this article on The Conversation’s In Depth Out Loud podcast. Meanwhile, to many of those in the outside world who were convinced by the computer’s performance, it appeared that artificial intelligence had reached a stage where it could outsmart humanity – at least at a game that had long been considered too complex for a machine. He and his supporters believed that Deep Blue’s playing was too human to be that of a machine. In an echo of the chess automaton hoaxes of the 18th and 19th centuries, Kasparov argued that the computer must actually have been controlled by a real grand master. When Deep Blue took the match by winning the final game, Kasparov refused to believe it. Kasparov had won the first game, lost the second and then drawn the following three. In defeating Kasparov on May 11 1997, Deep Blue made history as the first computer to beat a world champion in a six-game match under standard time controls. The victor was even more unusual: IBM supercomputer, Deep Blue. It’s not uncommon for a defeated player to accuse their opponent of cheating – but in this case the loser was the then world chess champion, Garry Kasparov. The loser reacted with a cry of foul play – one of the most strident accusations of cheating ever made in a tournament, which ignited an international conspiracy theory that is still questioned 20 years later. In just 11 more moves, white had built a position so strong that black had no option but to concede defeat. When black mixed up the moves for the Caro-Kann defence, white took advantage and created a new attack by sacrificing a knight. On the seventh move of the crucial deciding game, black made what some now consider to have been a critical error.
0 kommentar(er)
