Computer Chess
1
Hi, I'm Robert Lawrence with the
Advantage Corporation in San Diego,
and we have a Colby 5 here,
which is highly optimized
for playing chess.
And we have designed it around
that uses a brute strength approach
I don't want to give away exact numbers,
but we've got the fastest depth-first
search to get the most number...
We can predict more turns in advance
than any other computer,
so we've got a good chance.
My field is experimental psychology,
but I've spent the last three years
studying chess skill
in both humans and machines.
And this is TSAR.
This is the latest iteration of Caltech's
computer chess programme.
This is 3.0. Last year, 2.0 won
this very same tournament.
Computers are getting smaller,
they're getting better, they're getting faster.
It's a matter of time before
we beat people with these things.
(Interviewer) Do you guys have a programme
in the competition here today?
No. Don't know anything about it.
We're just watching 'em get ready
for the end of the world here.
- World War Ill.
- That's what we're here for.
Getting in on the ground floor.
(Interviewer) Do you think a human being
will ever beat a person at chess?
Oh... Between a "human being"
and a "person"?
My money's on the computer.
(Interviewer) Er, I mean a computer...
If you ask Captain Apocalypse there...
Have you talked to this guy?
I feel like I'm writing intercontinental
ballistic missile routines here!
I just wanna win at chess.
(I COLLIE RYAN:
"Nothing But Changes")
JWhat can I say,
there is nothing but changes
J' Nothing but changes
JWhat can I say,
there is nothing but changes
J' Nothing but changes
JYou and I stay
the same anyway
J' Does it really take time
to be free of your mind? J'
(Man) Hey! Hey!
Do not ever shoot at the sun,
you're gonna burn out the tube!
- I wasn't shooting at the sun, it's fine.
- You're shooting at the sun!
of the weekend inside.
We want to be only inside.
That's it!
even further,
to the mechanical Turk, 1770,
the original chess-playing machine.
It played against and defeated
Benjamin Franklin
and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Well, he had a secret.
There was a human being
inside the machine.
Though the first was a fraud,
we're working to get back
I greet you for our annual North
American Computer Chess Tournament
and present you with a panel
of the best and the brightest.
From my left, there is Les Carbray
from Allied Laboratories.
Hi there.
Martin Beuscher,
sitting in for Tom Schoesser.
And that's last year's winner,
TSAR 2.0 from Caltech.
Roland McVey from MIT,
the programmers of STASIA.
And finally Mike Papageorge,
who is an independent programmer.
in the house
which can stand up
That's me!
When will a machine beat me?
Many years ago
I made a public wager
that no computer would beat me
until the year 1984,
and that date is quickly coming up.
So what do you think, gentlemen?
Will I win my bet?
I... I think you're cutting it close,
but I think you will win that bet.
Erm... If I was in your shoes,
I wouldn't extend it any.
I think within two years of that, 1986,
you won't stand a chance,
and I think that,
say another ten years after that,
there isn't a man or woman alive
who will stand a chance.
Well, there may be some disagreement,
but look at the speed with which
the technology, the software,
but particularly the hardware,
is progressing right now.
And just based on that speed,
barring a calamitous event
like World War Ill to set us back,
I truly believe it to be inevitable.
How about any of the other gentlemen,
do you have a thought on this?
Want to chime in?
This articulate panel?
We've experimented some
with parallel processing
and then we're doing selective search,
and all the algorithmic and software things
that we're doing
makes a difference,
it does make an improvement,
but it's dwarfed by the improvement
we get just with better hardware.
More memory and faster processor.
We're blessed at Allied
in that we have the equipment,
we have the resources
at our disposal, so...
The person I'm really excited to talk to
about real gains in software
is perhaps Tom Schoesser,
who I thought was going to be here
on this panel?
Yes, Professor Schoesser
will be here shortly,
he is delayed,
but he will be here.
OK, could you perhaps
talk about some of that?
Talk about advances?
Well, I...
I think it's safe to say that we're operating
in some of the same avenues as Allied,
could speak more to that,
but I'm not necessarily certain
Well, anyway,
whatever you did last year was working
because TSAR 2.0 was the winner,
and they were especially good
about endgames,
and that's a place
where computer programmes often falter.
So I think what I'd like to show is an example
of what happened last year.
And I'm sorry
to do this to my friend right here, but...
Well, this should have been
an easy win for STASIA.
that there's a forced queen-takes-queen,
and it's a very easy victory for White.
But instead... Queen checks.
Queen checks.
Check, check, check, check,
back and forth,
over and over again,
lost in a loop.
Very, very embarrassing,
wouldn't you say?
Er, yes.
It was not our finest moment.
But you bring up a good point.
I think we've seen a lot of increase
in hardware speed,
it's definitely led to stronger game play.
In fact I think we're searching the tree
deeply enough now
that we're catching
pretty much all of the tactical issues.
But STASIA's greatest weakness,
which I think is the same weakness
all our programmes share,
is that it really has a very poor understanding
of the positional issues.
So this year at MI we've hired a grandmaster to help us out.
He's helped us come up with a couple rules
on the endgame specifically
that will hopefully help us
avoid the comedy that we saw last year.
Mr Papageorge,
we haven't heard from you yet.
You usually have
a very unique opinion, so...
(Clears throat) Frankly Pat,
I have to tell you I find the programming
of my fellow competitors here
to be almost as boring as this discussion.
(Laughter and clapping)
Why, because the machine can't compete
against the human soul?
(Henderson) Very interesting!
Sure, sooner or later
somebody's gonna write a programme
that's gonna beat you in '83, in '85,
who cares?
Listen, you guys
are just trying to eke out
one little victory
versus each other, you know?
You get here this year,
you get here next year.
My programme is seeking harmonies,
seeking innovations...
- I'm not entirely sure...
- That's what I'm doing!
...from the perspective of programming
Translation
Translate and read this script in other languages:
Select another language:
- - Select -
- 简体中文 (Chinese - Simplified)
- 繁體中文 (Chinese - Traditional)
- Español (Spanish)
- Esperanto (Esperanto)
- 日本語 (Japanese)
- Português (Portuguese)
- Deutsch (German)
- العربية (Arabic)
- Français (French)
- Русский (Russian)
- ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada)
- 한국어 (Korean)
- עברית (Hebrew)
- Gaeilge (Irish)
- Українська (Ukrainian)
- اردو (Urdu)
- Magyar (Hungarian)
- मानक हिन्दी (Hindi)
- Indonesia (Indonesian)
- Italiano (Italian)
- தமிழ் (Tamil)
- Türkçe (Turkish)
- తెలుగు (Telugu)
- ภาษาไทย (Thai)
- Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
- Čeština (Czech)
- Polski (Polish)
- Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
- Românește (Romanian)
- Nederlands (Dutch)
- Ελληνικά (Greek)
- Latinum (Latin)
- Svenska (Swedish)
- Dansk (Danish)
- Suomi (Finnish)
- فارسی (Persian)
- ייִדיש (Yiddish)
- հայերեն (Armenian)
- Norsk (Norwegian)
- English (English)
Citation
Use the citation below to add this screenplay to your bibliography:
Style:MLAChicagoAPA
"Computer Chess" Scripts.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2024. Web. 8 Nov. 2024. <https://www.scripts.com/script/computer_chess_5842>.
Discuss this script with the community:
Report Comment
We're doing our best to make sure our content is useful, accurate and safe.
If by any chance you spot an inappropriate comment while navigating through our website please use this form to let us know, and we'll take care of it shortly.
Attachment
You need to be logged in to favorite.
Log In