Kasparov team mate chess computer mute sound

If a computer can be programed to play great chess-any program can merely play chess-then perhaps a computer could be programed to carry out other complex cognitive tasks. Indeed, this explains why computer scientists are so serious about chess-playing programs. From this early date it is clear that the intention of the programmer is to model the human thought process. Interestingly, Turing noted that the program was weak because 'It was in fact based on an introspective analysis of my thought processes when playing'(28) which proves to be significant in understanding the history of computer chess. The program-playing White-resigned after 29 moves. Turing's program was tested in 1951 against a weak human opponent. All chess players evaluate these and other similar considerations the difference is that the programmer must assign a numerical value to what are often very subjective, intuitive qualities. Turing's program was based on similar principles to Shannon's theory, in that the program assigned scores to various positions based on certain criteria, such as mobility, piece safety, and king mobility. Alan Turing, another pioneer in computer research, created an actual chess playing program, albeit by hand. Shannon's theory was entirely speculative he wrote no actual program. While the specifics of Shannon's theory have been surpassed by subsequent generations of programmers, the basic idea behind computer chess programs is essentially the same. The program would weigh such factors as material, pawn structure and the mobility of the pieces, just as a human chess player might. The program would then assign a 'score' to each position as a way to gauge its effectiveness as a move.

Another solution involves writing programs in such a way as to 'prune' the number of variations. One solution would be to construct computers with increasing computational power. A picture of these multiple possibilities resembles the branches of a tree, hence they are called 'search trees.' The program would have to include a final level or cut-off point beyond which the computer would stop calculating to calculate all possible variations would require too much time and computing power. In general, Shannon's ideas worked like this: the program would take a given board position, then calculate out the possible moves that might follow from that position. Claude Shannon, the father of information theory, first proposed the idea of programming a computer to play chess in 1950. This history is suggestively sketched by Monty Newborn, a leading figure in computer chess. IBM's victory did not come out of the blue: designing a program to defeat a human world champion has been an explicit goal of computer science and artificial intelligence research since the 1950's. What is the significance of Kasparov losing to a computer? Does this signal the beginning of the end of human intellectual superiority, thus consigning humans to a subservient role behind computers? Or is the victory of the computer as inconsequential as an automobile outracing a human runner or a bulldozer moving more earth than a human shoveler? That is, have we simply created a technology that outperforms humans but is ultimately designed and controlled by humans? Is chess itself a legitimate gauge to measure the intellectual capacity of computers (or humans), or are there more complex activities that would serve as a better litmus test? To answer these questions one must determine if Deep Blue was consciously playing chess or merely carrying out commands made by human programmers. At the center of these debates are several important questions. Some historiographic boundaries of this historic event are already forming, and I imagine these will continue to shape interpretations into the foreseeable future. Deep Blue is also an historiographic event.

Deep Blue is an historic event, then succeeding generations will more than likely revisit it. Each new generation of historians always returns to notable events seeking new insights, new meanings, and fresh interpretations. Deep Blue is a significant moment in time that encapsulates a much larger historical reality, the implications of which historians may well wrestle with again and again. For historians of computing, Deep Blue's defeat of Kasparov-arguably the greatest chess player ever-has the potential to be like Gettysburg or the storming of the Bastille. Deep BlueДЄccording to many observers, the chess match between Garry Kasparov and the IBM computer Deep Blue in May 1997 was an 'historic event.' If true, then this match would seem to be the sort of event that would be of special concern to historians interested in the marriage of computers and history.

Kasparov team mate chess computer mute sound