Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Classic Games (Games) Robotics Hardware Games

Chess Terminator Robot Takes On Former World Champ 63

Posted by timothy
from the robots-control-you dept.
Zothecula writes with this excerpt from Gizmag: "For almost as long as we've had computers, humans have been trying to make ones that play chess. The most famous chess-playing computer of course is IBM's Deep Blue, which in 1997 defeated the then World Champion Garry Kasparov. But as powerful as Deep Blue was, it didn't actually move the chess pieces on its own. Perhaps that's a trivial task in comparison to beating the best chess player of all time, but it's still exciting to discover this recent video of a chess robot that more closely fits the true definition of a chess automaton." My favorite part: "Note that around the 2:45 mark Kramnik extends his hand offering a draw, but the robot – since it's not fitted with any kind of optical device – just keeps playing, very nearly taking off Kramnik's hand in the process!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chess Terminator Robot Takes On Former World Champ

Comments Filter:
  • by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:43PM (#34291986) Homepage

    Oh, it is.

    It just doesn't understand surrendering. Terminators take no prisoners.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Castle me if you want to live!

    • by pinkj (521155)
      I wonder how well it would do in blindfolded chess?
    • by morari (1080535)

      But to truly stop the human chess resistance, the robots will have tog o back in time and stop Bobby Fischer from ever being born...

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by hawk (1151)

      Given the reaction to the offered draw, it seems to be quite familiar with the Wookie Gambit . . .

  • Chess plays you!

  • I will be impressed when they make a cyborg--a cybernetic organism. Something along the lines of a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101.

    [the Terminator arrives naked and encounters some chess masters]

    Chess Master Leader: Nice night for a game, eh?

    The Terminator: Nice night for a game.

    Chess Master Leader: Wash day tomorrow? Nothing clean, right?

    The Terminator: Nothing clean. Right.

    Chess Master Leader: Hey, I think this guy's a couple pawns short of a eight-pack.

    The Terminator: Your clothes... give them to me,

    • by vegiVamp (518171)

      > I will be impressed when they make a cyborg

      Yes, but not as much as you now think you will be - it is more likely to be an evolution than a revolution; it'll just be the amalgam of gradual advances in a dozen different fields.

      It will still be a great thing, of course - the first fully functional synthetic organism; but we'll be more prepared for it than we'll ever be for first contact, for instance.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Terminator: [looks around, examining the structural integrity of the room, then looks back at him] I'll be back!

      WOPR: Wouldn't you prefer a good game of chess?

      Terminator: Fuck you, Joshua.

  • Deep blue cheated (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2010 @01:55PM (#34292064)

    When Garry played Deep Blue, it was understood that no parameters of the machine would be changed during game play. That turned out not to be the case, as the IBM programmers were tweaking things behind the scenes.

    Had Garry known this, he might have played differently, not expecting the machine to make new/different moves than it had previously made, etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ultranova (717540)

      When Garry played Deep Blue, it was understood that no parameters of the machine would be changed during game play. That turned out not to be the case, as the IBM programmers were tweaking things behind the scenes.

      While it would certainly be more impressive for Deep Blue to beat Gasparov unaided, it's still pretty impressive to beat him even with the aid of a programmer, unless that programmer happens to be a chess champion himself :).

      Had Garry known this, he might have played differently, not expecting th

      • by cfalcon (779563)

        It's flat out silly what they did.

        The whole damned man versus machine thing isn't about, can a man calculate more than a machine? We already know the answer to that. The question is, can a machine beat a man at chess?

        The answer was no, unless you have some humans fiddling with stuff behind the curtains. I'm fairly confident that a hybrid/cyborg setup can beat a human, because it's combining both of them.

        Anyway, was damned cheesy, mostly in the way it was presented. It was also cheesy because what Kaspar

      • A few observing grand masters at the time remarked that Gary was not trying to beat Deep Blue, but to crush it, and this probably was his undoing...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rbarreira (836272)

      I never saw any evidence that the parameters were changed during games. In between games yes, which I don't see a problem with.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        "In between games" that constituted the six game 1997 match, with the ultimate winning of the match deciding which party will be called victor.

        The match rules allowed for this, so we can't say Garry didn't know. That said, they did diddle with the machine during the match, which has always made the claim of victory hollow to me. It lowered the bar. That it was a lowering which Garry agreed to, doesn't matter.

    • IBM were allowed to make changes between games, and there's no evidence that any tweaking was done during a single game.

    • by Nyder (754090)

      When Garry played Deep Blue, it was understood that no parameters of the machine would be changed during game play. That turned out not to be the case, as the IBM programmers were tweaking things behind the scenes.

      Had Garry known this, he might have played differently, not expecting the machine to make new/different moves than it had previously made, etc.

      "it was understood" means someone assumed and didn't ask.

  • Robot playing chess is one thing, but what will happen if you cannot make it stop playing games. We wouldnt want any more chess moves. Rules of chess need to be only slightly wrong and it keeps playing infinitely.

  • Cool, let's put two of these up against each other.

  • It must be annoying to have devoted a big part of your life to playing chess, only to have someone say "Well, we built this robot who can kick your ass in five minutes." I think when robots are better at my job than I could be, I would start to question the meaning of my life. Its worthy of an Ishiguro novel, or I guess, under the circumstances, a Dostoevsky.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zippthorne (748122)

      Interesting.

      If a robot was better at my job than I could be, my solution would be to consider buying a robot....

      • It sounds like a good idea, but what do you do when the robots become sentient and spend all day browsing Slashdot instead of working?
    • I think when robots are better at my job than I could be, I would start to question the meaning of my life.

      If so, you should have questioned your life's meaning a long time ago. I think people impart far too much importance to things they can do.

      Tonight, go outside and look up at the beautiful starry sky and contemplate the size of the Universe. Then, consider the fact: We are only important to ourselves; This entire planet could disappear right now and it would not matter significantly to the rest of the Universe, save one lonely Jedi on Tatooine.

      • by Achra (846023)

        Tonight, go outside and look up at the beautiful starry sky and contemplate the size of the Universe. Then, consider the fact: We are only important to ourselves; This entire planet could disappear right now...

        I can one-up this: Each and every individual is only important to themselves. Everyone is out for number 1. Oh, you think that people care about you, that they worry about you, etc... But that is not actually the case. They care about the relationship that they have with you. If you blink out of their world, it is their relationship with you that blinks out with it.. and that is the part they are concerned about. Not the actual YOU. One of the greatest ironies of our society is that everyone is out for numb

        • by wwfarch (1451799)
          If everyone is ultimately only concerned about themselves how do you explain concern and worry for a complete stranger? Take the massive outpouring of sympathy and help for people hurt by natural disasters. Most people donating their time and money have no connection whatsoever with the people they are helping yet they still feel concern.
      • by Animats (122034) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @03:59PM (#34292778) Homepage

        I think when robots are better at my job than I could be, I would start to question the meaning of my life.

        In the 1980s, there was an article in Chess Life: "Computer Chess - It's Getting Serious". This was when computers started playing chess well enough that grandmasters had to take them seriously. One strong player wrote "I'm starting to feel like John Henry against the steam hammer" [wikipedia.org]. Now it's happened. Any good desktop machine can be loaded up with software that plays at world champion level [rybkachess.com] for about $125. (If you haven't been on the cover of Chess Life, a laptop will be enough to trounce you.) People are still playing chess.

        Work, though, is another matter. What's happening is the hollowing out of the middle class. There are more crap jobs that pay minimum wage, but fewer ones that pay more. Manufacturing used to pay well; now it pays slightly above minimum wage, if that. That's because the machines are doing the thinking. The workers are just robot hands with minimal skills.

        Here's a very clear example of that - The Kiva robotic order fulfillment system. [youtube.com] Watch that video. Hundreds of cooperating mobile robots. All the thinking and planning is done by the computers. The workers just take things out of one tray and put them in a box. The computers even control a laser pointer to point to the object they're supposed to pick. Then a bar-code scanner checks that they did it right. "Requires little or no operator training". Zero opportunity for advancement.

        • by Khashishi (775369)

          Here's a very clear example of that - The Kiva robotic order fulfillment system. [youtube.com]

          Wow! In the past, the human made the decisions and the robot was just a dumb tool, repeating movements ad nauseam. In the future, the robot makes the decisions and the human is just a dumb tool, repeating movements ad nauseam.

    • by Idbar (1034346)
      Well, there are limited options on a chess game. You just have 64 positions and 32 pieces, there's a limited number of plays. That makes easy for a computer to beat humans. The game is nearly deterministic, no randomness as in poker.

      Creativity is what makes the difference. If you watched the video, I think the most interesting part was when he moved a pawn halfway, that's when the robot got somewhat stuck and almost went for his hand. Chess is a basic imitation of war games, but in real life, there's not
      • Well, there are limited options on a chess game. You just have 64 positions and 32 pieces, there's a limited number of plays. That makes easy for a computer to beat humans. The game is nearly deterministic, no randomness as in poker.

        Just because there is a limited number of options because of rules on movement etcetera, that doesn't mean that this limited number of plays isn't a bloody huge number beyond the capacity of most computers. Imagine the starting position of a chess game: white has 20 moves, and black has the same 20 moves. That is already 400 combinations, after only 1 move. In the next move, there are a few more options because a bishop can escape, say 25 options, same for black. That's a quarter of a million possibilities

  • by voss (52565) on Saturday November 20, 2010 @02:34PM (#34292288)

    These chess terminators they dont feel pity, or fear , or remorse and they absolutely will not stop until you are checkmated!

  • Is anyone else getting re-directed to Epoclick.com after clicking the link in this story?

    A few days ago, sometimes when I click on a link, I get sent to Epoclick.com in a popup window. This has only been happening with Slashdot and links going to gizmodo or gizmag and only on this laptop. I can't figure out which website is to blame, or if maybe I have a virus or malicious javascript code running.

  • It was a drawn position, with the computer starting to shuffle the bishop back and forth. No point playing on. It did pretty well to hold Kramnik to a draw playing almost instantaneously.. engines usually play sub par moves at those kinds of speeds in my experience.. well it would still kick my ass, but this is Kramnik he's playing. Kramniks a machine himself. Also worth noting is i think Kramnik made a joke after he tried to trade off queens and the machine refused it. Kramnik is notorious for playing awe
  • Kudos (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    In fact, just finding and moving chess pieces around with a robot is orders of magnitude harder than playing the game of chess. We humans are just adapted towards these kinds of things (moving around in a 3D environment and manipulating objects) that it comes very easy to us, and we don't view it as a "hard" problem -- so when we see a game like chess, we think it is "hard" because we don't do it automatically. For a computer, which is well adapted for crunching numbers and doing logic, chess comes very nat

  • When I read the headline I was hoping someone finally made a Chess Boxing [wikipedia.org] robot.
  • by antdude (79039)

    English translation please? Also, what is with the pauses with clicks like camera shutters?

  • "Is your name Vladimir Kramnik?" when you open the game.
  • The computers are beating Communists at chess now, next thing you know they'll be beating humans.

    K.

  • Yawn. This robot has nothing on the competitors at this year's AAAI robotic chess competition. Check out a video of them here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ0Hx04KFCg [youtube.com]. The main difference is that the robot featured in this post uses an instrumented chess board while those at the AAAI competition had to use computer vision and work with a variety of off-the-shelf chess pieces and board.

    The first robot shown actually has the same RGB-D sensor that the Microsoft Kinect has and it won't move if there's a han

  • Nothing new, the Mechanical Turk did it already more than 200 years ago.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...