WN: You took input from several chess experts in developing Deep Blue. We told it what it was doing wrong, in a sense, and hoped that would be fixed. It just understood more about chess and was able to play better because of it. That's some halftime pep talk.Ĭampbell: That was one of the factors we ran on a larger IBM supercomputer, but we also redesigned the chess-specific hardware so it would run more chess patterns.
Google maps apk for fire tablet software#
WN: Deep Blue got some software modifications and hardware upgrades for its next match that helped it analyze 200,000,000 moves per second. Pretty much it was right down to the wire, so we obviously were quite pleased when it won the first game of that match, even though it lost the match. So there was frantic testing before the first match. WN: The buildup to the first Deep Blue game - were you guys at all nervous?Ĭampbell: Yeah, it was a bit of a nerve-wracking time, mainly because the hardware that Deep Blue ran only got working a few weeks before the match. WN: Kasparov easily beat Deep Thought 2-0. There were just two games between Deep Thought and Kasparov and I think many people were surprised at the level of interest that that match drew. Actually, at the time, in 1989, it was a fairly low-key event. WN: How did the notion come about of a contest with Kasparov? It was obviously going to be a high-profile match.Ĭampbell: I don't think it was obvious at all. There was a turning point in the '70s when it was realized that, if you let computers do what they do best - that is, search through as many possibilities as they can as quickly as they can - and stop the pretense of trying to emulate how humans play, you actually got better performance.Īnd so, from that day on, computers, including Deep Blue, tended to be focused on searching through as many possible chess moves as they could in the amount of time that was available for a computation. WN: What are Deep Blue’s roots, and on what technological principles did its forebears operate?Ĭampbell: Claude Shannon, the famous computer scientist and mathematician proposed that chess was a grand challenge for these new things called computers - if you could get a computer to play chess at the world champion level, you had done something really special. In the 10 years since the match, I have yet to see any evidence of cheating. One of the things about conspiracy theories is that, really, you should present some evidence rather than just make a theory up. Your response?Ĭampbell: In my mind, they're ridiculous.
WN: Some conspiracies emerged that say the computer was being controlled by human grand masters behind the scenes. WN: Why do you think the match captured the public imagination to such a great degree? We're past the stage where there's a debate about who's better - machines or grand masters - and we're just looking for interesting ways to make the competition fairer. They're even taking relatively dramatic steps like giving handicaps to computers, making them play the game with a pawn less or playing the game with less time. WN: What’s going to be the next move in supercomputing over the next 10 years?Ĭampbell: It's almost the end of the story for chess in the sense that matches between chess machines and grand masters are becoming less interesting because it's so difficult for the human grand masters to compete successfully. If you look at the supercomputer that Deep Blue ran on, I think a present-day Cell processor has as much processing power as that entire system did in 1997.
Google maps apk for fire tablet Pc#
Murray Campbell: Not so well! The current world champion, Vladimir Kramnik from Russia, lost a match to a PC program in November, 4-2.
0 kommentar(er)
