Computer Chess Question

[+thegoldenband]

The good news is that computers still haven't figured out go. Then again, neither have I!

And you not having figured it out has nothing to do with it. People need to be trained for certain tasks.

There's this amazing new product called "a sense of humor." You might look into purchasing it.

 

(Seriously, do you have a severe case of Asperger's Syndrome or something? That's not meant as a jab -- I honestly can't understand how someone could read my post and reply to it in the way you did.)

[+thegoldenband]

Divya16, I don't really have any interest in replying to your (exceedingly rude) post, but I do have to address one thing:

 

By the way, Kasparov hasn't won a match against a computer since 1996. He lost a famous match in 1997 against Deep Blue when he was the reigning world champion; since then he's had a couple of drawn matches, I think, though the computers in question may well have been weaker than Deep Blue. In fact, I don't think any world champion has won a match against a computer since then -- Kramnik was crushed by Deep Fritz a few years ago.

You are misinformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov

You do know what the difference between a "match" and a "game" is, right? The Wikipedia article is quite clear:

 

1997 - Kasparov loses match against Deep Blue, 2.5-3.5

2003 - Kasparov draws match against Deep Junior, 3-3

2003 - Kasparov draws match against X3D Fritz, 2-2

 

Also, what's with the little comments like "checkmate" and "mate in one"? This thread and (for that matter) this board are for civil discussion, not point-scoring. If you approach discussion as a competitive thing where you're looking to "checkmate" your opponents, I'm not sure how you've managed to last this long here.

Edited October 14, 2010 by thegoldenband

[atariksi]

Divya16, I don't really have any interest in replying to your (exceedingly rude) post, but I do have to address one thing:

 

By the way, Kasparov hasn't won a match against a computer since 1996. He lost a famous match in 1997 against Deep Blue when he was the reigning world champion; since then he's had a couple of drawn matches, I think, though the computers in question may well have been weaker than Deep Blue. In fact, I don't think any world champion has won a match against a computer since then -- Kramnik was crushed by Deep Fritz a few years ago.

You are misinformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov

You do know what the difference between a "match" and a "game" is, right? The Wikipedia article is quite clear:

 

1997 - Kasparov loses match against Deep Blue, 2.5-3.5

2003 - Kasparov draws match against Deep Junior, 3-3

2003 - Kasparov draws match against X3D Fritz, 2-2

 

Also, what's with the little comments like "checkmate" and "mate in one"? This thread and (for that matter) this board are for civil discussion, not point-scoring. If you approach discussion as a competitive thing where you're looking to "checkmate" your opponents, I'm not sure how you've managed to last this long here.

 

You didn't address the point (again). Checkmate makes sense now since you are proving you are a sore loser.

You don't see your own rudeness which you started and blame others; hypocrite.

[atariksi]

The good news is that computers still haven't figured out go. Then again, neither have I!

And you not having figured it out has nothing to do with it. People need to be trained for certain tasks.

There's this amazing new product called "a sense of humor." You might look into purchasing it.

 

(Seriously, do you have a severe case of Asperger's Syndrome or something? That's not meant as a jab -- I honestly can't understand how someone could read my post and reply to it in the way you did.)

 

I took your message seriously and replied seriously. You want me to treat it as a joke then there's no point in being rude about it since it wasn't clear that it was a joke. Stop the insulting. Go waste someone else's time. Your reply was uncalled for and a straw-man argument. It's irrelevant to my example.

[atariksi]

I'm not into following chess players since I believe there are many who play chess and aren't recognized as chess players world wide. But it's quite clear that humans have beaten machines recently. And all you need to do is win some percentage like >20% to prove that a better algorithm is possible. And here is the relevant quote from article referenced by Divya16:

 

Deep Junior, 2003

Kasparov played with 3D glasses in his match against the program X3D Fritz.

 

In January 2003, he engaged in a six game classical time control match with a $1 million prize fund which was billed as the FIDE "Man vs. Machine" World Championship, against Deep Junior.[71] The engine evaluated three million positions per second.[72] After one win each and three draws, it was all up to the final game. After reaching a decent position Kasparov offered a draw, which was soon accepted by the Deep Junior team. Asked why he offered the draw, Kasparov said he feared making a blunder.[73] Originally planned as an annual event, the match was not repeated.

[edit] X3D Fritz, 2003

 

In November 2003, he engaged in a four-game match against the computer program X3D Fritz, using a virtual board, 3D glasses and a speech recognition system. After two draws and one win apiece, the X3D Man-Machine match ended in a draw. Kasparov received $175,000 for the result and took home the golden trophy. Kasparov continued to criticize the blunder in the second game that cost him a crucial point. He felt that he had outplayed the machine overall and played well. "I only made one mistake but unfortunately that one mistake lost the game."[74]

[+CharlieChaplin]

I have ran Colossus Chess 3 against 4: http://manillismo.blogspot.com/2009/04/colossus-tournament.html

and Colossus Chess 4 against GNU Chess: http://manillismo.blogspot.com/2009/04/colossus-chess-40-a8-vs-gnu-chess.html

Only with an emulator.

 

Also there are third party attempts for 2600: http://manillismo.blogspot.com/2010/09/competencias-entre-consolas-sobre.html

 

--Devwebcl

 

 

Hmm,

strange - Colossus 4 wins over Colossus 3 ?!? Well, one could think that the newer version of course wins against the older version. But back then the strength of a chess program was counted in ELO and afaik Colossus 3 has 450 ELO, while Colossus 4 (due to its 3D) has only 350-400 ELO, so its strange to me, that the weaker (but newer, version 4) program wins against the stronger (but older, version 3) program...

 

Anyways, one may test all the A8 chess programs I listed above and try to find out which is the best one - then one could use only this program against other 8Bit (16Bit, 32Bit, 64Bit, whatever) chess programs and see what the results are. However, if the best A8 chess program were to be Colossus 4, then we already have a result against GNU chess...

 

-Andreas Koch.

[jaybird3rd]

Damn, there are some serious Chess people in here... This is turning into a Atari Jaguar Thread!

Good thing the Jaguar doesn't have a chess game. Put the two together and it'd probably start World War III.

 

But seriously ... of all the 8-bit implementations of Chess that are out there, how many are using the same AI? If we're going to be comparing different Chess games, it might help to eliminate duplication if we can weed out those that are (in effect) running the same software. One "factoid" I discovered while researching Aquarius Chess, for example, is that it uses AI technology that was licensed from Heuristic Software, which was apparently used by many other electronic and computer Chess games of that era (including, if I'm right, the Intellivision version).

 

Here is an interesting LinkedIn page for Craig Barnes, the lead programmer at Heuristic; from the sound of it, if you've played any computer chess at all, you've probably used his software.

[Tempest]

I took your message seriously and replied seriously. You want me to treat it as a joke then there's no point in being rude about it since it wasn't clear that it was a joke. Stop the insulting. Go waste someone else's time. Your reply was uncalled for and a straw-man argument. It's irrelevant to my example.

After reading your statement I've come to the conclusion that you may want to seek professional help. Please *DO* take this seriously.

 

Tempest

[atariksi]

I took your message seriously and replied seriously. You want me to treat it as a joke then there's no point in being rude about it since it wasn't clear that it was a joke. Stop the insulting. Go waste someone else's time. Your reply was uncalled for and a straw-man argument. It's irrelevant to my example.

After reading your statement I've come to the conclusion that you may want to seek professional help. Please *DO* take this seriously.

 

Tempest

 

He didn't even address the serious point but selectively quoted the part that he considers a joke. Whether joke or not, he still didn't address the point and then on top of that he insults me. All he had to say was that he's joking rather being rude and forcing people to accept his joke as something obvious which it still isn't to me. Given his tone of voice in that post, it's not at all obvious he's joking.

[Tempest]

I took your message seriously and replied seriously. You want me to treat it as a joke then there's no point in being rude about it since it wasn't clear that it was a joke. Stop the insulting. Go waste someone else's time. Your reply was uncalled for and a straw-man argument. It's irrelevant to my example.

After reading your statement I've come to the conclusion that you may want to seek professional help. Please *DO* take this seriously.

 

Tempest

 

He didn't even address the serious point but selectively quoted the part that he considers a joke. Whether joke or not, he still didn't address the point and then on top of that he insults me. All he had to say was that he's joking rather being rude and forcing people to accept his joke as something obvious which it still isn't to me. Given his tone of voice in that post, it's not at all obvious he's joking.

You need to chill out a bit. If you keep taking things so seriously you'll only end up making yourself miserable.

 

Tempest

[+thegoldenband]

Divya16 and atariksi, congratulations on being the first user(s) -- not sure if the plural is justified here? -- to make me go looking for, and use, the "Ignore user" function. I don't really know what your problem is, but here's wishing you the best (since the rest is always better left unsaid).

 

(BTW, I never disagreed that "the best algorithm has yet to be written". I just disagree that single victories in individual games mean "the fact that a human can defeat a computer using brute force shows that the AI is crappy compared to real intelligence". I think when computers are capable of crushing all but the strongest grandmasters with little difficulty, and are consistently winning or [at worst] drawing matches against world champions, then talking about "crappy AI" starts looking very silly, because it's certainly not pure brute force that's winning here.)

[atariksi]

Divya16 and atariksi, congratulations on being the first user(s) -- not sure if the plural is justified here? -- to make me go looking for, and use, the "Ignore user" function. I don't really know what your problem is, but here's wishing you the best (since the rest is always better left unsaid).

 

(BTW, I never disagreed that "the best algorithm has yet to be written". I just disagree that single victories in individual games mean "the fact that a human can defeat a computer using brute force shows that the AI is crappy compared to real intelligence". I think when computers are capable of crushing all but the strongest grandmasters with little difficulty, and are consistently winning or [at worst] drawing matches against world champions, then talking about "crappy AI" starts looking very silly, because it's certainly not pure brute force that's winning here.)

 

You can't distinguish between two users-- perhaps it's you who needs medical attention.

 

I agree 100% the AI is crappy and it is easily proved which somehow you missed again. Sorry, you missed that analogy as well regarding Quicksort. A human only calculates a few moves and a computer does millions/second and still a human wins even in recent cases. Can't follow that simple logic then that's your problem.

[devwebcl]

I have ran Colossus Chess 3 against 4: http://manillismo.blogspot.com/2009/04/colossus-tournament.html

and Colossus Chess 4 against GNU Chess: http://manillismo.blogspot.com/2009/04/colossus-chess-40-a8-vs-gnu-chess.html

Only with an emulator.

 

Also there are third party attempts for 2600: http://manillismo.blogspot.com/2010/09/competencias-entre-consolas-sobre.html

 

--Devwebcl

 

 

Hmm,

strange - Colossus 4 wins over Colossus 3 ?!? Well, one could think that the newer version of course wins against the older version. But back then the strength of a chess program was counted in ELO and afaik Colossus 3 has 450 ELO, while Colossus 4 (due to its 3D) has only 350-400 ELO, so its strange to me, that the weaker (but newer, version 4) program wins against the stronger (but older, version 3) program...

 

Anyways, one may test all the A8 chess programs I listed above and try to find out which is the best one - then one could use only this program against other 8Bit (16Bit, 32Bit, 64Bit, whatever) chess programs and see what the results are. However, if the best A8 chess program were to be Colossus 4, then we already have a result against GNU chess...

 

-Andreas Koch.

 

Yes, it is very hard to have an accurate analysis between chess games. I left each game of CC 3 vs 4 in pgn format if someone wish to do that analysis.

However the ELO of CC3 & CC4 were done on the same scenario ? Maybe CC4 played against strongest chess player (human and/or computer) and that's why obtained a smaller ELO (only a guess).

 

In the comments part of my post there is an analysis done by a amateur chess player about the first game and saying the CC3 made several errors. This is a quick translation done with google: http://translate.google.cl/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmanillismo.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F04%2Fcolossus-tournament.html&sl=es&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Arena tournament blitz a8 cc v3.0.zip

[Marius]

Not an answer for the topicstarter, but my favorite Chess program on atari 8bit is Colossus Chess.

 

It has so much features, and it really plays a nice game. It's not superstrong, but on a higher level I guess it is ELO 1600 or 1700...

 

Some moves are pretty interesting and playing chess on atari 8bit is a great thing for me: I legally can sit for hours behind this wonderful equipment

 

Yeah I love it. When I win I'm happy I won, When I lost I'm proud of my atari 8bit computer being able to win!

 

All times fun!

[Greg Miller]

The good news is that computers still haven't figured out go. Then again, neither have I!

 

Seems like lots of AI programmers have moved from Chess to Go and Arimaa, now that Chess is considered a solved problem. Both Go and Arimaa are rather cool games, but I find that Arimaa is a lot easier to explain to non-players and significantly harder to play with brute force.

[OldAtarian]

Divya16, I don't really have any interest in replying to your (exceedingly rude) post, but I do have to address one thing:

 

By the way, Kasparov hasn't won a match against a computer since 1996. He lost a famous match in 1997 against Deep Blue when he was the reigning world champion; since then he's had a couple of drawn matches, I think, though the computers in question may well have been weaker than Deep Blue. In fact, I don't think any world champion has won a match against a computer since then -- Kramnik was crushed by Deep Fritz a few years ago.

You are misinformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov

You do know what the difference between a "match" and a "game" is, right? The Wikipedia article is quite clear:

 

1997 - Kasparov loses match against Deep Blue, 2.5-3.5

2003 - Kasparov draws match against Deep Junior, 3-3

2003 - Kasparov draws match against X3D Fritz, 2-2

 

Also, what's with the little comments like "checkmate" and "mate in one"? This thread and (for that matter) this board are for civil discussion, not point-scoring. If you approach discussion as a competitive thing where you're looking to "checkmate" your opponents, I'm not sure how you've managed to last this long here.

Someone (not you) can't read very well. You said Kasparov hadn't WON a match against a computer since 1996, not that he hadn't PLAYED a match against a computer. The matches he mentioned only prove YOUR point.

Edited October 15, 2010 by OldAtarian

[Divya16]

Divya16, I don't really have any interest in replying to your (exceedingly rude) post, but I do have to address one thing:

 

By the way, Kasparov hasn't won a match against a computer since 1996. He lost a famous match in 1997 against Deep Blue when he was the reigning world champion; since then he's had a couple of drawn matches, I think, though the computers in question may well have been weaker than Deep Blue. In fact, I don't think any world champion has won a match against a computer since then -- Kramnik was crushed by Deep Fritz a few years ago.

You are misinformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov

You do know what the difference between a "match" and a "game" is, right? The Wikipedia article is quite clear:

 

1997 - Kasparov loses match against Deep Blue, 2.5-3.5

2003 - Kasparov draws match against Deep Junior, 3-3

2003 - Kasparov draws match against X3D Fritz, 2-2

 

Also, what's with the little comments like "checkmate" and "mate in one"? This thread and (for that matter) this board are for civil discussion, not point-scoring. If you approach discussion as a competitive thing where you're looking to "checkmate" your opponents, I'm not sure how you've managed to last this long here.

Someone (not you) can't read very well. You said Kasparov hadn't WON a match against a computer since 1996, not that he hadn't PLAYED a match against a computer. The matches he mentioned only prove YOUR point.

 

He doesn't have a point is the biggest problem. He just states things out of the blue without addressing the point. How many games you play against the computer is arbitrary. The fact that Kasparov won some games in the 2000s proves that humans have beaten the computer. You could easily have set the number of games to one instead of 6 or 4 or whatever. Just like playoffs -- sometimes they play best out of 3 or best out of 5 or best out of 7 but they are all arbitrary. You only need to win one to show my point.

 

And neither do you have to be a grandmaster to establish the logic. Obviously, you aren't a chess player. But I play level 1 on Chessmaster 5000 which thinks ahead hundreds of moves and I sometimes win (like 50%) and I only think ahead 3 or 4 moves and I am not a grandmaster. Thus, the logic follows that my algorithm is superior. QED.

 

And to add to the complete hypocracy of his claim-- he claims he was joking when he claims the computer chess is a solved issue (figured out), yet he claims my using "checkmate" isn't humor but something serious. Looks like the complete opposite to me. More later if needed, but he's deluded as far as I see it.

[Marius]

And neither do you have to be a grandmaster to establish the logic. Obviously, you aren't a chess player. But I play level 1 on Chessmaster 5000 which thinks ahead hundreds of moves and I sometimes win (like 50%) and I only think ahead 3 or 4 moves and I am not a grandmaster. Thus, the logic follows that my algorithm is superior. QED.

 

I did not follow the complete discussion on this, so sorry if my response is offtopic in that...

 

You write: playing on level 1. Chessmaster 5000 definately does not think hundreds of moves ahead. It thinks (perhaps) hundreds of variations, but that is something different! I don't know the think-depth of that particular chessprogram but it is something between 4 and perhaps 12...

 

On a lower level some chessprograms do have some weakness on purpouse. So the behave like human players, with human risks or mistakes.

 

So the logic is definately NOT that your algorithm is superior, because you probably can not reproduce the same result in the same case. It is not proven that you can. As soon as you get a 100% score, in all games, your algorithm is proven as superiour.

[atariksi]

And neither do you have to be a grandmaster to establish the logic. Obviously, you aren't a chess player. But I play level 1 on Chessmaster 5000 which thinks ahead hundreds of moves and I sometimes win (like 50%) and I only think ahead 3 or 4 moves and I am not a grandmaster. Thus, the logic follows that my algorithm is superior. QED.

 

I did not follow the complete discussion on this, so sorry if my response is offtopic in that...

 

You write: playing on level 1. Chessmaster 5000 definately does not think hundreds of moves ahead. It thinks (perhaps) hundreds of variations, but that is something different! I don't know the think-depth of that particular chessprogram but it is something between 4 and perhaps 12...

 

 

I don't have chessmaster 5000 (but many others), but from the chessmaster faq it states:

 

--- quote

Q: What do the two numbers (X/Y) mean in the "Depth" column of the

Mentor Lines and Thinking Lines windows?

A: The first number is the "brute force" search depth, which means that

all possible moves up to that depth have been searched by the engine.

The second number is called the "minimum extension depth", and it is

also sometimes called the "nominal search depth". This is the minimum

depth that the most promising have been searched to. So, for example, a

depth of 3/12 means that all possible combinations of three moves from

the current position have been searched, and those combinations that

are most likely to be considered to be "best play" have been searched

to a minimum depth of 12 moves.

 

--- end quote

 

You're interpreting "hundreds of moves ahead" as depth, but that's not necessarily true.

 

On a lower level some chessprograms do have some weakness on purpouse. So the behave like human players, with human risks or mistakes.

That weakness is related to how much time you give it and how much many moves it thinks ahead in the chessmasters I have played. There's no reason to assume things if you don't know.

 

So the logic is definitely NOT that your algorithm is superior, because you probably can not reproduce the same result in the same case. It is not proven that you can. As soon as you get a 100% score, in all games, your algorithm is proven as superior.

 

That's not true. All you said was "perhaps" and "maybe it puts in mistakes purposely". Speaking as a normal chess player, human algorithm is superior because you don't use brute force but only look at your plan of attack and if some piece is attacking you which is exponentially less than what the computer is doing. Perhaps, you should read/follow the discussion before drawing a conclusion with the word "definitely".

 

I don't even buy that computers are faster than humans when it comes to computations. Humans aren't born with the ability to play chess just like computers aren't either. Humans have to be trained (as I mentioned previously) for certain tasks. I know people and have seen live who have been trained to play with swords and hit the swords at almost exact spots while dancing and doing flips. I know humans who have beaten the computer at computing mathematical expresssions involving 1/13th root of numbers to certain number of digits. Etc. Etc.

[OldAtarian]

And neither do you have to be a grandmaster to establish the logic. Obviously, you aren't a chess player. But I play level 1 on Chessmaster 5000 which thinks ahead hundreds of moves and I sometimes win (like 50%) and I only think ahead 3 or 4 moves and I am not a grandmaster. Thus, the logic follows that my algorithm is superior. QED.

 

I did not follow the complete discussion on this, so sorry if my response is offtopic in that...

 

You write: playing on level 1. Chessmaster 5000 definately does not think hundreds of moves ahead. It thinks (perhaps) hundreds of variations, but that is something different! I don't know the think-depth of that particular chessprogram but it is something between 4 and perhaps 12...

 

 

I don't have chessmaster 5000 (but many others), but from the chessmaster faq it states:

 

--- quote

Q: What do the two numbers (X/Y) mean in the "Depth" column of the

Mentor Lines and Thinking Lines windows?

A: The first number is the "brute force" search depth, which means that

all possible moves up to that depth have been searched by the engine.

The second number is called the "minimum extension depth", and it is

also sometimes called the "nominal search depth". This is the minimum

depth that the most promising have been searched to. So, for example, a

depth of 3/12 means that all possible combinations of three moves from

the current position have been searched, and those combinations that

are most likely to be considered to be "best play" have been searched

to a minimum depth of 12 moves.

 

--- end quote

 

You're interpreting "hundreds of moves ahead" as depth, but that's not necessarily true.

 

On a lower level some chessprograms do have some weakness on purpouse. So the behave like human players, with human risks or mistakes.

That weakness is related to how much time you give it and how much many moves it thinks ahead in the chessmasters I have played. There's no reason to assume things if you don't know.

 

So the logic is definitely NOT that your algorithm is superior, because you probably can not reproduce the same result in the same case. It is not proven that you can. As soon as you get a 100% score, in all games, your algorithm is proven as superior.

 

That's not true. All you said was "perhaps" and "maybe it puts in mistakes purposely". Speaking as a normal chess player, human algorithm is superior because you don't use brute force but only look at your plan of attack and if some piece is attacking you which is exponentially less than what the computer is doing. Perhaps, you should read/follow the discussion before drawing a conclusion with the word "definitely".

 

I don't even buy that computers are faster than humans when it comes to computations. Humans aren't born with the ability to play chess just like computers aren't either. Humans have to be trained (as I mentioned previously) for certain tasks. I know people and have seen live who have been trained to play with swords and hit the swords at almost exact spots while dancing and doing flips. I know humans who have beaten the computer at computing mathematical expresssions involving 1/13th root of numbers to certain number of digits. Etc. Etc.

 

I'd like to see a human out think SuperPi.

[atariksi]

...

I don't even buy that computers are faster than humans when it comes to computations. Humans aren't born with the ability to play chess just like computers aren't either. Humans have to be trained (as I mentioned previously) for certain tasks. I know people and have seen live who have been trained to play with swords and hit the swords at almost exact spots while dancing and doing flips. I know humans who have beaten the computer at computing mathematical expresssions involving 1/13th root of numbers to certain number of digits. Etc. Etc.

 

I'd like to see a human out think SuperPi.

 

Even without training/practice or good memory or good algorithm, if you allow opening books like they do in chess, then just read off the digits from the book.

 

Seriously though, it's insulting to even compare computers to humans given they don't even come close in comparison to simpler species in terms of computational power. Here's some quote from article I wrote about 10 years ago regarding a honeybee vs. a laptop (mostly built-in computational power):

 

(a) ENERGY USAGE: a honeybee's brain dissipates less than 10 microwatts; a computer energy usage is in watts-- about 1 million times more power usage.

(b) SPEED: a honeybee's brain performs more than 1 trillion operations per second compared to current computers which perform about 1 billion operations per second.

© SIZE: a honeybee's brain is measured in cubic millimeters whereas even the smallest laptops are measured in inches and usually require big heat sinks, fans, and other supporting peripherels to properly function.

(d) FULLY AUTOMATED: honeybees do not rely on programmers or maintainers; they manage their activities by themselves. Computers have to be programmed, interacted with using keyboards and microphones, serviced, etc.

(e) BEHAVIOR: honeybees can see, smell, fly, walk, and maintain balance. They can navigate long distances and predict changes in nectar location; they can remember which flowers they have already visited; they can communicate the location of nectar sources to worker bees in the hive; they recognize intruders and attack; they remove garbage and dead bees from the hive; and, when the hive becomes crowded, a subpopulation will swarm in search of a new home. They also reproduce full versions of themselves to continue their activities.

 

Don't forget there are no errors in the honeybees so that they crash, need to be upgraded, or need to be rebooted!

[OldAtarian]

...

I don't even buy that computers are faster than humans when it comes to computations. Humans aren't born with the ability to play chess just like computers aren't either. Humans have to be trained (as I mentioned previously) for certain tasks. I know people and have seen live who have been trained to play with swords and hit the swords at almost exact spots while dancing and doing flips. I know humans who have beaten the computer at computing mathematical expresssions involving 1/13th root of numbers to certain number of digits. Etc. Etc.

 

I'd like to see a human out think SuperPi.

 

Even without training/practice or good memory or good algorithm, if you allow opening books like they do in chess, then just read off the digits from the book.

 

Seriously though, it's insulting to even compare computers to humans given they don't even come close in comparison to simpler species in terms of computational power. Here's some quote from article I wrote about 10 years ago regarding a honeybee vs. a laptop (mostly built-in computational power):

 

(a) ENERGY USAGE: a honeybee's brain dissipates less than 10 microwatts; a computer energy usage is in watts-- about 1 million times more power usage.

(b) SPEED: a honeybee's brain performs more than 1 trillion operations per second compared to current computers which perform about 1 billion operations per second.

© SIZE: a honeybee's brain is measured in cubic millimeters whereas even the smallest laptops are measured in inches and usually require big heat sinks, fans, and other supporting peripherels to properly function.

(d) FULLY AUTOMATED: honeybees do not rely on programmers or maintainers; they manage their activities by themselves. Computers have to be programmed, interacted with using keyboards and microphones, serviced, etc.

(e) BEHAVIOR: honeybees can see, smell, fly, walk, and maintain balance. They can navigate long distances and predict changes in nectar location; they can remember which flowers they have already visited; they can communicate the location of nectar sources to worker bees in the hive; they recognize intruders and attack; they remove garbage and dead bees from the hive; and, when the hive becomes crowded, a subpopulation will swarm in search of a new home. They also reproduce full versions of themselves to continue their activities.

 

Don't forget there are no errors in the honeybees so that they crash, need to be upgraded, or need to be rebooted!

 

"Don't forget there are no errors in the honeybees so that they crash, need to be upgraded, or need to be rebooted!"

 

Yes there is, a pretty big one actually. It's called Colony Collapse Disorder. It's the honeybee equivalent of the BSOD.

Edited October 19, 2010 by OldAtarian

[JagChris]

I ran across this video the other day and found it so fascinating I have watched it a couple of times since.

 

 

 

Digging up the old Computer Chess program on the 8 bit it seems they are siblings for lack of a better term looking at the similarities. 

 

I would almost guess that the same people did the 400/800 Chess as the 2600 version. Except for the fact in the above video they wanted more memory on the 2600 to improve the algorithm. Well in the computer they had that and I don't know it doesn't seem like they may have did anything different. And the computer version isn't mentioned. So I'm guessing someone else ported it over.

 

Has any new information come out about who did the computer version?

 

Has anyone pitted the 2600 chess against the  Atari computer chess?

 

How about Fidelity Chess vs the A8 rematch? Anyone get around to that?

[+Stephen]

If I am not mistaken, this game came out because some jackass sued Atari for having a picture of Chess on the 2600 box, but no chess game available to buy.

[JagChris]

3 hours ago, Stephen said:

If I am not mistaken, this game came out because some jackass sued Atari for having a picture of Chess on the 2600 box, but no chess game available to buy.

I heard something like that but I was wondering who did the computer version. No one seems to know.