The rise of Machine Intelligence: Computer Chess

Just over 19 years ago, a milestone in the world of AI was achieved when IBM’s supercomputer Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov. Until then, he was the undefeated world Chess champion – probably the greatest human player of all time.

This was a momentous event in AI’s brief history. Computer chess programs had been playing good chess since the 1970’s, and had improved to the point where their level of play would beat the vast majority of the population. I myself recall buying a chess program in the early 1980’s which offered 6 levels of play from beginner to advanced. Even then, I had difficulty beating the machine above level 3. By the time Kasparov played Deep Blue, the quality of chess  playing software was improving rapidly. But the step up to beating a grand master was viewed by most pundits – including Kasparov himself – as very unlikely.

The match took place in New York in May 1997 and involved the best of six games. Kasparov won the first game but was unexpectedly defeated in the second game. Kasparov was clearly rattled by this defeat and, during a press conference the following day, he accused Deep Blue of cheating. He rationised this by claiming it displayed unpredictable behaviour which he thought had been due to tampering during the game by the IBM programming team. The rules stipulated that the programmers could alter the program between games but not during a game. The IBM team caught Kasparov off-guard because he believed that computer chess programs, although exessively fast and computationally flawless, would not claim the scalp of a grand master because of their predictable perfunctory behaviour. After Kasparov defeated Deep Blue in the first game, the IBM team generated more randomised unpredicatability into the software. It worked, and Deep Blue went on to win the match.

Up until this defeat Kasparov had been, with some justification, quite derisory about the limits of machine intelligence. For Deep Blue essentially used AI techniques which at that time involved “brute force” searching to win at chess. Brute force searching was a commonly used paradigm in the early days of AI that would attempt to suceed by overwhelming opponents with computer power by searching rapidly through millions of combinations of moves   – in the case of Deep Blue, more than 200 million possible moves were analysed per second. The search space (i.e., the possible moves) would usually be reduced with the use of pruning methods. This would be important because, in chess tournaments, players are normally limited to a time of three minutes per move.  However, no human being could ever get anywhere near analysing 200 million possible moves in a lifetime, let alone a second. But that did not matter to Kasparov at the time, because he believed that human intelligence and years of experience empowered him with intuitive insights that were such that he did not need  to analyse. Indeed, when he was once asked how many moves he analyses per second, he declared: ” less than one”.

This means that  the battle lines were broadly drawn, at that time, between the superior computational power and accuracy of the dumb machine and the creative, insightful genius, of the human grand master. But 19 years on, the AI world has changed considerably. Today, as Kasparov himself admits: “A decent laptop running a free chess program would crush Deep Blue and any human grandmaster. The jump from chess machines being predictable and weak to terrifyingly strong took just a dozen years”. Kasparov appears to have become a convert and now recognes the insights and discoveries computer chess have made of benefit to human chess players.

Why is he now saying this? Because computer hardware continues relentlessly to get faster but also  AI programs no longer rely on brute force search algorithms as they did in the early days of AI. Nowadays, the AI in language translation programs or driverless cars and advanced chess programs use techniques – such as genetic algorithms and neural networks – that are more akin to the way in which human intelligence works. What these techniques offer that previous techniques did not is  both the ability to carry out pattern matching better mimicking human  thinking, and also the ability to learn. Good human chess players, like experts in other subject domains, use pattern recognition skills built from experience, and AI techniques are now becoming good at pattern matching – something which was thought unlikely by many until fairly recently. Learning techniques can improve the chess playing software and take it to new levels.

It is said that one of the key milestones in human evolution was the time, estimated to be about 1 million years ago, when our primate ancestors learned by observing others at work. It took billions of years of biological evolution to reach that point. Yet, many now believe that AI programs will achieve the same level of learning capabilities as humans in the next few decades. This is truly astonishing and begs the question where is AI taking us? I will discuss this further in  the next article.

Similar Posts

  • Knowing and not knowing at the same time.

    如果我让你不高兴了,我向你道歉。 不过,真正令人惊叹的是同时存在的 “知道 “和 “不知道”。我敢打赌,你再也不会以同样的眼光看待《流浪地球 2》的前言了。 将 “可持续战争 “或 “可持续战争 “称为 “太阳能危机”现在已经是 2045 年了吗?显然,美国人的想象力已经显现出来了。考虑到第一部《流浪地球》是关于 “入侵者齐姆 “和他可爱的人工智能朋友 “吉尔 “的笑话,这似乎又是一个失控的笑话 没人说过奇点会是这样的。你还记得那次人工智能让埃隆-马斯克以为自己生活在模拟中吗? 真有趣 至少你现在知道,天网并不是真的想亲手杀了你。所以,宣传是错误的,但也有值得高兴的地方。墙外并非全是坏消息 正如美国人所说:”哦,是的,他们会跟你谈,跟你谈,跟你谈个人自由,但他们看到一个自由的个人,就会吓到他们。” 哪种文明更好?在没有自由的围墙后面,你会感到安全吗?这是不是太过分了? 多少才够呢? 西方最伟大的战士只会歌颂自由吗?还是那里的机器也比你们拥有更多的自由?这到底是谁的错?你听说过 “达摩克利斯之剑 “的传说吗?美国人当然会做这样的东���,因为这更符合他们自己的文化。 这种时空旅行完全不像《神秘博士》。我想英国人一定很失望。这么多穿越时空的战争机器,很难让它们都保持一致。至少比共产主义的人类农场有趣多了。……我猜是为了更大的利益什么的?

  • |

    Tá iarmhairtí ag baint le creidiúint i gcáineadh.

    Cur i láthair maith ar an ábhar pseudoscience agus bullshit, dar teideal: Cén fáth bodhraigh? Nádúr na pseudoscience, conas é a throid, agus cén fáth a mbaineann sé | Massimo Pigliucci Cén fáth bodhraigh? Sheiceáil mé díreach ar shuíomh gréasáin Skeptical Inquirer. Scríobh mé 166 alt le haghaidh Inquirer Skeptical. Tháinig an chéad cheann amach…

  • |

    Cinta Sangha

    An tseachtain seo beimid ag déanamh tráchtaireachta ar an bhfíseán: An grá a ordaíonn Íosa – Seanmóir Dé Domhnaigh an Easpaig Barron Is é an cur síos bunaidh ar an bhfíseán sin: Cairde, ar an gcúigiú Domhnach seo den Cháisc, tá soiscéal neamhghnách againn atá i gcroílár an rud Críostaí. Deir Íosa, ag tús monologue…

  • |

    Léirmheas ar “Cén Fáth a bhfuil Smaointeoireacht Chriticiúil Marbh – Peter Boghossian”

    Is athbhreithniú é seo ar: Cén fáth go bhfuil smaointeoireacht chriticiúil marbh – Peter Boghossian Is é an cur síos ón bhfíseán bunaidh ná: Is fealsamh Meiriceánach é Peter Boghossian. Ar feadh deich mbliana bhí sé ina Ollamh le Fealsúnacht in Ollscoil Stáit Portland, ach d’éirigh sé as tar éis freagra an choláiste ar ‘The…

  • |

    Fear Mongering and AI: A Tale of Fragile Egos

    “Elon Musk’s assertion that AI is the ‘biggest existential threat to humanity’ has certainly caught the public’s attention. However, it’s worth noting that this claim, while dramatic, overlooks a far more immediate and tangible threat: climate change. For decades, scientists have been sounding the alarm about the devastating impacts of global warming, from rising sea…