The next step would be to look into what has been repeatedly called one the turning points in the history of artificial intelligence: the two Garry Kasparov vs Deep Blue chess matches.
Indeed, the matches were extremely exciting, back then in 1996-1997. Kasparov was a true legend in the chess community. World champion at the age of 22 in 1985, he held the title until 2000. Already then he was widely recognized as a one of the greatest chess players of all time, featuring a aggressive, appealing playing style.
The challenger, Deep Blue, was a chess-specific supercomputer built by IBM both as research project and a publicity stunt.
The history can be summarized quickly: Deep Blue lost the first match in 1996 and won the revanche in 1997. Last year, Kasparov gave a great interview about that time.
In hindsight, it is clear that the defeat of the world-champion by a chess computer was a well predictable event: the question should have been not whether but when in the decade between 1995 and 2005.
Strangely, it did not feel like that back in 1996. There were strong feelings about whether it would be really possible that a computer could possibly beat Kasparov. There were strong feelings about what would be the consequences of the defeat of humans by machines. Chess would be dead. Young people would'nt play anymore. And so forth and so on. The old "the world will go the dogs" kind of story.
Deep Blue won and nothing happened, apart of people talking about it for some weeks and then forget about it. Obviously, this would not stop computer scientists from working on the topic. Chess engines still were developed. In 2009, a mobile phone with Hiarcs 13 would win a super chess tournament and reach unprecented Elo ratings. Nowaday, grandmasters play chess engines only with odds.
And still, people would still play chess, new young talents will come to chess clubs, chess instructors will not go out of business. From my very individual perspective: the situation for chess players has improved over time since 1997.
One things changed, though: chess computers would be taken seriously from now on. The field of computer chess would become a competitive field in its own, played by its own rules and igniting a new set of innovations.
The history can be summarized quickly: Deep Blue lost the first match in 1996 and won the revanche in 1997. Last year, Kasparov gave a great interview about that time.
In hindsight, it is clear that the defeat of the world-champion by a chess computer was a well predictable event: the question should have been not whether but when in the decade between 1995 and 2005.
Strangely, it did not feel like that back in 1996. There were strong feelings about whether it would be really possible that a computer could possibly beat Kasparov. There were strong feelings about what would be the consequences of the defeat of humans by machines. Chess would be dead. Young people would'nt play anymore. And so forth and so on. The old "the world will go the dogs" kind of story.
Deep Blue won and nothing happened, apart of people talking about it for some weeks and then forget about it. Obviously, this would not stop computer scientists from working on the topic. Chess engines still were developed. In 2009, a mobile phone with Hiarcs 13 would win a super chess tournament and reach unprecented Elo ratings. Nowaday, grandmasters play chess engines only with odds.
And still, people would still play chess, new young talents will come to chess clubs, chess instructors will not go out of business. From my very individual perspective: the situation for chess players has improved over time since 1997.
One things changed, though: chess computers would be taken seriously from now on. The field of computer chess would become a competitive field in its own, played by its own rules and igniting a new set of innovations.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento