{"id":189714,"date":"2017-04-27T02:11:08","date_gmt":"2017-04-27T06:11:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/artificial-intelligence-chess-match-of-the-century-nature-com\/"},"modified":"2017-04-27T02:11:08","modified_gmt":"2017-04-27T06:11:08","slug":"artificial-intelligence-chess-match-of-the-century-nature-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/artificial-intelligence\/artificial-intelligence-chess-match-of-the-century-nature-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Artificial Intelligence: Chess match of the century &#8211; Nature.com"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>      Garry Kasparov PublicAffairs: 2017. ISBN: 9781610397865    <\/p>\n<p>      Buy this book:       US       UK       Japan    <\/p>\n<p>        Stan Hinda\/Getty      <\/p>\n<p>          Grandmaster Garry Kasparov during the last of six games          against Deep Blue in 1997; the computer won the match by          3.5 games to 2.5.        <\/p>\n<p>    Nearly 20 years ago, I was fortunate enough to play friendly    blitz chess against former world champion Garry Kasparov. It    was quite an experience; his competitive spirit and creative    genius were palpable. I had recently founded Elixir Studios,    which specialized in artificial intelligence (AI) games, and my    ambition was to conduct cutting-edge research in the field. AI    was on my mind that day: Kasparov had played chess against    IBM's supercomputer Deep Blue just a few years before. Now, he    sets out the details of that titanic event in his memoir    Deep Thinking.  <\/p>\n<p>    The 1997 match was a watershed for AI and an extraordinary    technical feat. Strangely, although Kasparov lost, it left me    more in awe of the incredible capabilities of the human brain    than of the machine. Kasparov was able to compete against a    computational leviathan and to complete myriad other tasks that    make us all distinctly human. By contrast, Deep Blue was    hard-coded with a set of specialized rules distilled from chess    grandmasters, and empowered with a brute-force search    algorithm. It was programmed to do one thing only; it could not    have played even a simpler game such as noughts and crosses    without being completely reprogrammed. I felt that this brand    of 'intelligence' was missing crucial traits such as    generality, adaptability and learning.  <\/p>\n<p>    As he details in Deep Thinking, Kasparov reached a    similar conclusion. The book is his first thorough account of    the match, and it offers thoughtful meditations on technology.    The title references what he believes chess engines cannot do:    they can calculate, but not innovate or create. They cannot    think in the deepest sense. In drawing out these distinctions,    Kasparov provides an impressively researched history of AI and    the field's ongoing obsession with chess.  <\/p>\n<p>    For decades, leading computer scientists believed that, given    the traditional status of chess as an exemplary demonstration    of human intellect, a competent computer chess player would    soon also surpass all other human abilities. That proved not to    be the case. This has to do partly with differences between    human and machine cognition: computers can easily perform    calculation tasks that people consider incredibly difficult,    but totally fail at commonsense tasks we find intuitive (a    phenomenon called Moravec's paradox). It was also due to    industry and research dynamics in the 1980s and 1990s: in    pursuit of quick results, labs ditched generalizable,    learning-based approaches in favour of narrow, hand-coded    solutions that exploited machines' computational speed.  <\/p>\n<p>    The focus on brute-force approaches had upsides, Kasparov    explains. It may not have delivered on the promise of    general-purpose AI, but it did result in very powerful chess    engines that soon became popularly available. Today, anyone can    practise for free against software stronger than the greatest    human chess masters, enabling enthusiasts worldwide to train at    top levels. Before Deep Blue, pessimists predicted that the    defeat of a world chess champion by a machine would lead to the    game's death. In fact, more people play now than ever before,    according to World Chess Federation figures.  <\/p>\n<p>    Chess engines have also given rise to exciting variants of    play. In 1998, Kasparov introduced 'Advanced Chess', in which    humancomputer teams merge the calculation abilities of    machines with a person's pattern-matching insights. Kasparov's    embrace of the technology that defeated him shows how computers    can inspire, rather than obviate, human creativity.  <\/p>\n<p>    In Deep Thinking, Kasparov also delves into the    renaissance of machine learning, an AI subdomain focusing on    general-purpose algorithms that learn from data. He highlights    the radical differences between Deep Blue and AlphaGo, a    learning algorithm created by my company DeepMind to play the    massively complex game of Go. Last year, AlphaGo defeated Lee    Sedol, widely hailed as the greatest player of the past decade.    Whereas Deep Blue followed instructions carefully honed by a    crack team of engineers and chess professionals, AlphaGo played    against itself repeatedly, learning from its mistakes and    developing novel strategies. Several of its moves against Lee    had never been seen in human games  most notably move 37 in    game 2, which upended centuries of traditional Go wisdom by    playing on the fifth line early in the game.  <\/p>\n<p>    Most excitingly, because its learning algorithms can be    generalized, AlphaGo holds promise far beyond the game for    which it was created. Kasparov relishes this potential,    discussing applications from machine translation to automated    medical diagnoses. AI will not replace humans, he argues, but    will enlighten and enrich us, much as chess engines did 20    years ago. His position is especially notable coming from    someone who would have every reason to be bitter about AI's    advances.  <\/p>\n<p>    His account of the Deep Blue match itself is fascinating.    Famously, Kasparov stormed out of one game and gave    antagonistic press conferences in which he protested against    IBM's secrecy around the Deep Blue team and its methods, and    insinuated that the company might have cheated. In Deep    Thinking, Kasparov offers an engaging insight into his    psychological state during the match. To a degree, he walks    back on his earlier claims, concluding that although IBM    probably did not cheat, it violated the spirit of fair    competition by obscuring useful information. He also provides a    detailed commentary on several crucial moments; for instance,    he dispels the myth that Deep Blue's bizarre move 44 in the    first game of the match left him unrecoverably flummoxed.  <\/p>\n<p>    Kasparov includes enough detail to satisfy chess enthusiasts,    while providing a thrilling narrative for the casual reader.    Deep Thinking delivers a rare balance of analysis and    narrative, weaving commentary about technological progress with    an inside look at one of the most important chess matches ever    played.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Read this article:<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v544\/n7651\/full\/544413a.html\" title=\"Artificial Intelligence: Chess match of the century - Nature.com\">Artificial Intelligence: Chess match of the century - Nature.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Garry Kasparov PublicAffairs: 2017. ISBN: 9781610397865 Buy this book: US UK Japan Stan Hinda\/Getty Grandmaster Garry Kasparov during the last of six games against Deep Blue in 1997; the computer won the match by 3.5 games to 2.5. Nearly 20 years ago, I was fortunate enough to play friendly blitz chess against former world champion Garry Kasparov.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/artificial-intelligence\/artificial-intelligence-chess-match-of-the-century-nature-com\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[187742],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-artificial-intelligence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189714"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189714\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}