|
|
|
|
|
|
by philipkglass
3283 days ago
|
|
|
It was the Type B approach — the intelligence strategy — that ended up being the dead end. Despite their early optimism, AI researchers utterly failed in getting computers to think as people do. Deep Blue beat Kasparov not by matching his insight and intuition but by overwhelming him with blind calculation. Thanks to years of exponential gains in processing speed, combined with steady improvements in the efficiency of search algorithms, the computer was able to comb through enough possible moves in a short enough time to outduel the champion. Brute force triumphed. “It turned out that making a great chess-playing computer was not the same as making a thinking machine on par with the human mind,” Kasparov reflects. “Deep Blue was intelligent the way your programmable alarm clock is intelligent.” Chess engines didn't stop evolving after 1997. Later chess engines are stronger than Deep Blue when running on a laptop or even a smartphone. That's even though they evaluate far fewer positions per second than Deep Blue did. In fact, as of 2014 contemporary chess software running on a smartphone was stronger than chess software from 2006 running on a desktop quad core i7. http://en.chessbase.com/post/komodo-8-deep-blue-revisited-pa... http://en.chessbase.com/post/komodo-8-deep-blue-revisited-pa... http://en.chessbase.com/post/komodo-8-the-smartphone-vs-desk... Blind speed didn't win the race in the long run. But by the time that was clear, human performance trailed machines by so far that people craving drama from man-vs-machine had lost interest. |
|
|