Comments on: Thinking machine

Thinking machine

growabrain — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:15:29 -0800

Play chess against the computer & Watch it think.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:25:57 -0800

Awesome.

By: Prospero

Prospero — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:30:49 -0800

Incredible post--this is bookmarked.

By: furtive

furtive — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:32:23 -0800

Previously.

By: twiggy

twiggy — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:32:29 -0800

It looks neat.. but.. most of the lines it's drawing are moves it cannot make, so I'm a bit confused as to what the "thinking" is that's really going on. Still, looks very neat.. nice post.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:36:29 -0800

twiggy, the About section describes the different colored lines. It predicts not only what moves it intends to make, but your possible response and subsequent boards. So, what you might think it cannot do may simply be because it's a move that exists on a board five steps in the future.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:37:42 -0800

Very cool. Twiggy-I would assume that those phantom lines are actually moves it could make later. It isn't just looking one move into the future, it's looking several.

By: growabrain

growabrain — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:40:44 -0800

Sorry for the DP - I checked "chess", "thinking machine", and a couple of other words, none came up -

By: Kosh

Kosh — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:42:32 -0800

Wow, what an exercise in humility. Thanks to some serious blunders I lost my queen in a few turns. The lines are a little confusing but given that every chessboard contains myriad possibilities (especially when you increase the amount exponentially by charting more than one move ahead), that's to be expected.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:43:19 -0800

It's fascinating. Of course, it's a big advantage to the human player that the computer reveals its future options. I wish this had existed when I was learning to play.

By: Kosh

Kosh — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:44:39 -0800

addendum: I don't understand why it thinks illegal moves that would put my king in check are "good" ones, though. Looking ahead to a time when I've moved my king so that the move no longer puts him in check, maybe? I wonder how it determines what a "good" move is.

By: fungible

fungible — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:09:58 -0800

This illustrates just how futile it is to play a computer in chess.

By: debralee

debralee — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:36:53 -0800

Where's Bobby Fisher when you need him?

By: kenko

kenko — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:01:21 -0800

I suck at chess.

By: daveg

daveg — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:11:09 -0800

It's quite 'pretty', but I can't work out whether it's telling me anything. ------------------ Gratuitous plug for the ChessFilter team at Gameknot

By: skyline

skyline — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:12:42 -0800

For anyone interested in how it works: the minimax algorithm.

By: craven_morhead

craven_morhead — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:51:17 -0800

Wow, that's really cool. I like how the more likely moves end up being darker, etc. pretty too.

By: squidlarkin

squidlarkin — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:33:04 -0800

Similarly, there's this visualization of the influence, tension, etc. that arise in a game of Go.

By: mania

mania — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:41:01 -0800

Thanks growabrain... this was beautiful and interesting at the same time. I've played my share of chess and never seen these symbols for chess employed before. Information design by Martin Wattenberg is always intriguing. On preview, quick Post Kids article on the growing Go phenomenon here. I had never heard of it before today. (WaPo registration may be required).

By: Rumple

Rumple — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:15:09 -0800

Strangely, its not a very good player. Maybe it dazzles itself.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:07:42 -0800

So... you beat the computer in how many moves, Rumple? Great post, though I include the obligatory finger-wagging for it being a double.... since I missed it, though, I appreciate seeing it.

By: jcruelty

jcruelty — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:29:11 -0800

It's a nice visualization of the algorithm. Pretty.

By: carsonb

carsonb — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:49:27 -0800

rumple - the about page says this about the difficulty: The chess playing engine is designed to be at the same level as the average viewer of the piece. If you're a tournament chess player, you would clobber most casual players--and you'll clobber Thinking Machine 4 too....The chess engine we built is simple and uses only basic algorithms from the 50s (alpha-beta pruning and quiescence search).

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:06:50 -0800

So you do alright here. Sorry, but not impressed. See how you fare against this chess A.I.

By: Rumple

Rumple — Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:25:23 -0800

thanks, carson, I didn't see that. I usually get waxed by the computers so this was a pleasant if unrealistic surprise.

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:58:51 -0800

For those who find the plethora of coloured lines confusing (though pretty), you may like later versions of Fritz which allow you to "draw back the curtain" and watch listed moves spill through the computer's processing and watch also as it chooses certain ones over others. I find that far more comprehensible and it actually does teach good chess.