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

a recursive assembler routine

that uses a brute strength approach

to finding the optimal route.

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!

You're gonna shoot the rest

of the weekend inside.

We want to be only inside.

That's it!

But computer chess goes back

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

to that level of chess play

when machine beats man.

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.

Is there a computer programme

in the house

which can stand up

to a human chess master?

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,

but maybe Professor Schoesser

could speak more to that,

but I'm not necessarily certain

he would speak about it.

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...

So, STASIA versus DAWN.

Well, this should have been

an easy win for STASIA.

Any human being can see

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

that it actually means anything.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes