and the plot thickens

Twist in plot twist : Kasparov lost on purpose

what if the asian guy moving the pieces is actually kasparov in disguise

That is actually a nice premise for a movie

Plot plot twist: I'm not saying it was aliens... but... it was aliens 💥😂

chess tictacs I haven't pondered this for a decade, having played chess my whole life, I know that Kasparov vehemently claimed that Deep Blue's programmers were cheating by analyzing how Kasparov was playing, but never come across any relevant evidence to suggest such cheating took place. I really wish to know more about this. Did Kasparov 'choke' when he realized he wasn't going to 'win' the rematch easily? This has also fascinated me. Was the rematch 'rigged?' between intervals so to speak, which Kasparov will go to his grave believing?? Or did the computer genuinely out wit any human's ability to read the game against a computer??? He never stopped talking about the relentless interventions with 'deep blue' between the rounds from multiple chess masters, thus making the match 'fixed' so to speak. There never was a trilogy. So what's the truth? Any big chess fan please illuminate me

@@hungrycrab3297 Do you know why they never payed again? Despite Kasparov wanting to? Thankyou for the insight

@@hungrycrab3297 Do you know why they changed the rules for computer systems like Divine not having intermissions during breaks when playing chessmasters?????

Fischer

i just don't understand why kasparov had to play as black 4 times. it should be 3-3 if the match goes all the way, (best of 6 games).

+Kåpla Kvëhla What are you doing here, Kappa Senpai?

Chess equivalent of an aimbot

*Reported for humaning* -Kasparov

@@PaladinswordSaurfang EXACTLY

​@@PaladinswordSaurfang Back here 2 years later : Garry cheated Judit Polgar in 1994 & Vishy in 1995 yet baselessly accused IBM in 1997. What a hypocrite.

It is incredible. And, in fact. No longer even possible. AlphaGo can still potentially be beaten at Go, but even that is starting to look impossible. Luckily, we will have Mao and Calvinball for a long time yet.

Well theoretically it is possible, just unlikely

Nathan Schubert and now alphazero beats stockfish8 (which wouldve stomped deep blue) 100 - 0

I personally think they handed him the first game so the computer can learn his moves

@@MagnumSkyWolf There was a bug in the program in the first game, they fixed it from game 2 on.

we can program it to.

Mafon2 PlaySound(Assets.Sounds.Celebrate, PlayMode.Async); UiManager.Load(Assets.Ui.GameOverPanel).Show();

How are you going to program emotion? You can program a computer to display certain emotions based on outcomes, but that's just displaying a message conveying emotion, not actually having an emotion. Computers aren't sentient.

You can do this by a reward-mechanism. Whenever the AI achieves something they will get that "reward" that's programmed. Maybe some extra processing power or something else that's usefull for the AI. There are multiple theories about this.

@@GijsvanGaalen At best, that simulates emotion, and not emulate it.

+Bob Shanely rng... in chess? if it's a joke, i don't get it.

+busTedOaS "For his book, Silver interviewed Murray Campbell, one of the three IBM computer scientists who designed Deep Blue, and Murray told him that the machine was unable to select a move and simply picked one at random. " www.wired.com/2012/09/deep-blue-computer-bug/

+Bob Shanely Thanks. That is actually very interesting. The best move was random... it makes me think whether it is necessary to have intent in order to qualify as intelligent. Or maybe it was even the best move to confuse Kasparov with that random ass move... just to get into his head. although I doubt that was Deep Blue's strategy.

@@BobShanely No, there is a system which determines the advantage and disadvantages of a move with a rating. It would simply take the one with the highest rating. Also it wasn't just brute force like they said in the video. The programmers were smarter than that.

And AlphaZero

Leela Zero, another self-teaching AI, has recently showed up!

AlphaGo vs AphaZero??

AlphaGo plays Go, AlphaZero plays chess. They're different games.

AlphaZero plays GO and SHOGI besides CHESS. but I think AlphaZero will win against AlphaGo(the one who beat lee sedol) but not against the latest version of AlphaGo.

Well now computers can beat humans on their own

Damn bruh the fact that its been 14 years since you commented and you were using yt at that time this gives me a nostalgia of something i never experienced

i just don't understand why kasparov had to play as black 4 times. it should be 3-3 if the match goes all the way, (best of 6 games).

Funny, a few years ago it would sound unfair to beat a machine using our "great" human brain.

How is that comparable? I could also say 260 processors against 86 billions neurons. That just means nothing.

Djorgal lol it has all combinations isntalled. It can analyze milions of moves in seconds and one man cant handle that much info. Yes one brain can have alot of memory, but analyzing all moves fast or think of combinations as a computer is not even comparable lol. One computer would even beat all gms at same time. If you are so smart try to challenge not computer, challenge something easier like calculator. Multiple 25687x26741 and start thinking when you click on equal button. I bet you will not calculate it fast to beat the calculator right? Same here, even standing a chance against this super computer is a huge deal!

And take the same calculator, show it a picture, and ask it if that is a picture of a bird. It won't be able to answer. Humans are good at doing some things when computers are better at doing others. To compare the number of processors of a computer to the number of brains of a human just means nothing, nor does it mean anything to compare numbers of transistors to numbers of neurons. Those are not the same thing and that doesn't make for a sensible comparison. A human chess player can realize what a fork is. If a knight attack two of his pieces at once, the computer needs to see at least one move ahead to conclude that it loses one. The grandmaster doesn't need to make the calculation at all because he knows what the position means. Yes the computer can analyse millions of moves per second but the chess player can actually devise a strategy.

Djorgal Your first sentence answered your question. "It wont say it is bird" but it will beat any human or at least draw but never lose in calculation, because it is programmed to calculate. If it was programmed to identify picture, trust me it would beat your ass anytime. Deep blue is programmed to beat ppl in chess and it is doing its job. If it was programmed to do everything human can do it will do, but never go beyond the limit of that. It can defintly not do better than that, neither can kasparov, because it is the limit be able to analaze all the moves possible. What you talk about is artificial intelligence, which is an intelligence that has the ability to think, manipulate, make choices independatly and creating some type of logic to understand things. There are no or wont be any machines that are artificial intelligence, but there will tons of machines that wil be prgrammed to do a particular job, far beyond the posibilites of human brain abilities.

i just don't understand why kasparov had to play as black 4 times. it should be 3-3 if the match goes all the way, (best of 6 games).

Stockfish uses brute force and is brilliant

AI is brute force.

2024 and Stockfish could crush 2017 AlphaZero

+Miguel Eduardo RESPEKT! "Deep blue defeated him psychologicaly." :)

another person who is better at chess than a world-professional chess player?

still a win nevertheless

and thats why cpu's are better, no emotion, only strategies.

​@Justin Y. Considering that Miguel Eduardo's point's validity hinges on him being better at chess than Gary Kasparov was...

+Dan0101010101010 Group of genius beat 1 genius.

A trained genius beaten by 1 box of silicon

+Dan0101010101010 Imagine what a group of geniuses could do to an intellectual? That would be like upgrading you to +Dan1111111111111 = Dan Powers

Yes and no. After they taught the computer (Programmed), the computer does all the work (Brute Force technique).

Basically a box beat 1 genius.

:)

Heh. More sensational than witty, really. True AI doesn't immediately mean a Skynet. Nor would any self-respecting scientist ask it such a ludicrous question.

Banzay27 According to Steve Hawking, it does.

Banzay27 You don't get the reference.

logandh2 It's response? "I'm not sure, but I'm really good at chess."

And father of UNIX, the operating system that changed the world, and many other awesome things he contributed to (UTF-8, GoLang, Plan 9, and many other).

Hi Kow Im Cobra

@@idisplaypace2411 hi i am gonna go play blitz

@@BlitzWizard94 why bro

@@idisplaypace2411 cause i am the BlitzWizard

Yeah I wish there were surviving live footage of the match. I still don’t have any idea about how much time deep blue takes to make a critical move, reactions of Kasparov in tense postions etc. Wish I could spectate the match 26 years after it was conducted

.

+Vlad Novetschi i am. and i am a go player

me 2 m8

Sip

And how other humans like these programmers were so eager for the obsolescence of humanity.

its not possible since after Kasparovs loss they destroyed the Deep Blue

port the code over to a computer today

At this point, Stockfish beats Magnus easily.

@@SimsHacks why can you tell us?

What happened?

@@Wolfboy950 I won! The engine beat him in 4 out of 6 matches.

200.000.000 or 200 million ;)

Well, "intelligently". There's just well thought algorithms and logic, which one can say are designed by intelligent people. It could be said to be intelligence in the machine if the machine figured that out itself on the fly, but it did not. People focused on this very problem developed and tuned the machine and its software to solve this very specific problem. For any other type of problem, the intelligence of the machine is 0, until someone again "teaches" it.

. . . . . . And John Connor is riding his dirk bike around

+ForTheHonor So many paradoxes.

No, not at all. Deep Blue is just running an endless loop of probing moves and chooses the best one. No different than running a brute force password breaker.

not at everything at the same time tho :).. Our brain is still x100 times better than any computer this size

if that happen we have created them so we are better xd

Alexis Vásquez honestty i dont believe that we can create something better than us considering that we are improving day by day

WhoAreYou Technology is improving exponentially faster.

Alexis Vásquez In what sense and why?

The succession of which? We destroy the earth...

Yaa i am afraid too. My vacuum Cleaner tried to kill me today LOL

Take over what, and what for?

Djorgal They can do almost everything better than humans... it's insane.

***** No it didn't knew the moves in advance, its memory would never have been enough. It was calculating its next move using an evaluation fonction. It does evaluate each move.

it cant do that. there are more possible moves in chess than there are atoms in the universe. it needed a opening database and an end game table but in the mid game it will use its processing power to calculate many moves ahead

john li Huh? More chess moves than there are atoms in this universe? LOL. How many atoms do you know? What about those we don't know about? How far around the universe have you travelled, away from our tiny little speck of dust we call home? I believe the number of chess moves is a lot but finite, therefore calculable. Since we know the maximum number of chess pieces that can be on the board at once, we can calculate all the possible moves... using simulation of course. Also, the fact that the A.I is domain specific (i.e. its sole purpose is to play chess only), it will only get better in that dimension while still being bound by the rules of that domain, which is chess rules. It will never think outside of it.

Human Being there are 10^120 possible different chess games the computer cant calculate them all and it doesnt have to.

Sergio Fernandez I read an interesting article about a theory relating to that sentiment. It goes like this, once we achieve a certain goal in creating an A.I(although the article was about Neural networks), the idea ceases to become magical. That's when we say "Well, nothing revolutionary here, it's just good old brute force", therefore demeaning the A.I. It's funny because ultimately if you look at every form of A.I out there, that's always the case. The only way I think to create an A.I on par with a human is by way of a collective hive mind. Something like SkyNet, where each unit has a very specific task of collecting information (visual, auditory, olfactory, etc), then that can be linked and associated with everything else. The information would then be used by other/same units for decision making.

ikr

Current chess apps AI are leagues beyond Deep Blue and *any* human player.

Yes I fully agree. However you're a total fool if you think analyzing millions of gamestates per second is consciously obtainable. +Super Dude

So impressive at the time but now he or Magnus stood 0% chance of winning.