Oh I just discovered http://www.thebearandbadger.co.uk/discussion/1623/x/p1.  Fucked it.

I play chess.com

A work colleague routinely thrashed me at chess. It's unlike a lot of games I play because there are no random elements - it's all about planning and I seem to be better at improvising. I think if I read up about strategies I'd do better. I've got a chess app on my phone, so there's no excuse not to practice.

I used to play a fair bit many years ago. Can’t say I’m good, but enjoy it. Recently played a sesh during staycation with the wife while teaching the moves to my daughter. I should make it a regular thing with them.

Favourite opening gambit:  http://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1401479151063.pdf

RamSteelwood wrote:

I would like chess more if it wasn't possible for anyone to remember prevous games/tactics etc. like if every game was fresh where you know the rules but other than that you're making it up. not that i've ever been good enough to learn any tactics or played anyone that good, but it does put me off.

Check out Fischer chess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess

anyone fancy playing? I use the new chess app

https://twitter.com/The_Pesky_Red/status/1327345861773455367?s=19

Fuck, thought it was the musical.

There's a doc about the 2nd Kaspersky match which generates a bit of controversy about that. There was a move in one game (game 2?) that Kaspersky thought looked dodgy - had signs of human intervention in his opinion. He said he never got over that move as he was never satisfied by IBM's explanation. And so his focus was gone. IBM won by a single game in a 6 game match.

Maybe that was sour grapes. But maybe not. Chess matches at the highest level are all about psychology - something a machine is obviously impervious to.

Kasperksy played a certain way against computers - abusing their weaknesses and that's how we won the 1st match. Maybe that was his undoing in the rematch?

It could have been a development in the tech that flummoxed him. But maybe it wasn't as IBM were embarrassed by the machine's performance in the first match where Kaspersky won easily. The machine was disassembled afterwards and IBM enjoyed a share price increase. At the end Kaspersky was still asking of the diagnostic logs of "that" game.

Deep Blue was a work in progress even during the matches and Kaspersky was able to detect this. So as an actual match it wasn't valid really - the machine was changed overnight usually. But as an exercise in AI dev, obviously it was extremely valuable.

Could have been "cheating", could be IBM protecting their IP. Deep Blue was a stepping stone toward their cloud AI "Watson" service.

It's academic now as chess has been mastered by AI now anyhow. It seems even Go has been toppled now. Watched a doc about that and a match against a Go master which the machine won.

Unless you meant Kasparov? Dunno. I’m probably making myself look stupid now.

Feck me.....

Yeah - Kasparov.

We used to use Kaspersky in work!!!!

davyK wrote:

There's a doc about the 2nd Kaspersky match which generates a bit of controversy about that. There was a move in one game (game 2?) that Kaspersky thought looked dodgy - had signs of human intervention in his opinion. He said he never got over that move as he was never satisfied by IBM's explanation. And so his focus was gone. IBM won by a single game in a 6 game match. Maybe that was sour grapes. But maybe not. Chess matches at the highest level are all about psychology - something a machine is obviously impervious to. Kasperksy played a certain way against computers - abusing their weaknesses and that's how we won the 1st match. Maybe that was his undoing in the rematch? It could have been a development in the tech that flummoxed him. But maybe it wasn't as IBM were embarrassed by the machine's performance in the first match where Kaspersky won easily. The machine was disassembled afterwards and IBM enjoyed a share price increase. At the end Kaspersky was still asking of the diagnostic logs of "that" game. Deep Blue was a work in progress even during the matches and Kaspersky was able to detect this. So as an actual match it wasn't valid really - the machine was changed overnight usually. But as an exercise in AI dev, obviously it was extremely valuable. Could have been "cheating", could be IBM protecting their IP. Deep Blue was a stepping stone toward their cloud AI "Watson" service. It's academic now as chess has been mastered by AI now anyhow. It seems even Go has been toppled now. Watched a doc about that and a match against a Go master which the machine won.

That's covered in this documentary. 

Basically the IBM guy says that Kasperov was correct in the first game, he was still just playing computer chess, so deep blue as good as it was, still acted along the same risk/reward probability lines as any other computer, it just had the power to calculate waaaaaay more outcomes when it was deciding which move to make. 

However for the second game, the IBM guy says they trained Deep Blue extensively to play from the position that it wound up in in game 2 before it made the suspicious move. They identified that as a weakness after the first game and specifically made the system play from those kinds of positions so that it would be better at defending itself from them, so it made a move that it had either seen during the training, or that it had given additional weighting to during the calculations for the move because of the scenarios that had played out after the first game.

I'm up for playing chess with some or all of you.

Roujin wrote:

There's a doc about the 2nd Kaspersky match which generates a bit of controversy about that. There was a move in one game (game 2?) that Kaspersky thought looked dodgy - had signs of human intervention in his opinion. He said he never got over that move as he was never satisfied by IBM's explanation. And so his focus was gone. IBM won by a single game in a 6 game match. Maybe that was sour grapes. But maybe not. Chess matches at the highest level are all about psychology - something a machine is obviously impervious to. Kasperksy played a certain way against computers - abusing their weaknesses and that's how we won the 1st match. Maybe that was his undoing in the rematch? It could have been a development in the tech that flummoxed him. But maybe it wasn't as IBM were embarrassed by the machine's performance in the first match where Kaspersky won easily. The machine was disassembled afterwards and IBM enjoyed a share price increase. At the end Kaspersky was still asking of the diagnostic logs of "that" game. Deep Blue was a work in progress even during the matches and Kaspersky was able to detect this. So as an actual match it wasn't valid really - the machine was changed overnight usually. But as an exercise in AI dev, obviously it was extremely valuable. Could have been "cheating", could be IBM protecting their IP. Deep Blue was a stepping stone toward their cloud AI "Watson" service. It's academic now as chess has been mastered by AI now anyhow. It seems even Go has been toppled now. Watched a doc about that and a match against a Go master which the machine won.

That's covered in this documentary.  Basically the IBM guy says that Kasperov was correct in the first game, he was still just playing computer chess, so deep blue as good as it was, still acted along the same risk/reward probability lines as any other computer, it just had the power to calculate waaaaaay more outcomes when it was deciding which move to make.  However for the second game, the IBM guy says they trained Deep Blue extensively to play from the position that it wound up in in game 2 before it made the suspicious move. They identified that as a weakness after the first game and specifically made the system play from those kinds of positions so that it would be better at defending itself from them, so it made a move that it had either seen during the training, or that it had given additional weighting to during the calculations for the move because of the scenarios that had played out after the first game.

What I watched was quite old (think I have the DVD - just checked yeah - called Game Over - Kasparov and the Machine) so it's interesting to hear an update as what I watched left it a bit murky - probably trying to create a bit of a drama when the real story is they got their arse handed to them and learned from that , came back and won - which was kind of inevitable I suppose.