After the game, Mr Kramnik said he was "a bit disappointed" but hoped a rematch could be arranged in a year or two.
"With more time to prepare, I still have a chance," he said.
Chess? Whatever? Can it beat a any dan level go players? Now THAT would be something.
Nah, the computer didn't whup Kramnik at all. Kramnik had the better chances in many games, but it was never enough to win. The computer just defends too well. Not only that, but the game of chess has been solved from the final mating positions, backwards to 6 pieces. The computer plays the end of the game without even calculating; it plays by lookup tables. Nor does it play the opening. There's still a lot of room for AI improvement for those who are interested, seeing as the computers aren't even playing the ending or openings anymore.
And even then, the computer doesn't necessarily play better chess
Now, I know you can say that "better" play is the play with fewer errors, but that just isn't what most people think of when they think "better".
If you play a game and don't enjoy it then there is no point in playing.
That's a strawman. I don't say that the "better" play is the play with fewer errors. I say that the "better" play is the play that wins more often.It's all qualitative
That's a strawman. I don't say that the "better" play is the play with fewer errors. I say that the "better" play is the play that wins more often.
Ye christ. And lord knows, win/loss records are the only meaningful aspect of AI research, games research, and the pursuit of understanding of human intelligence as a whole.
« Older Yikes. | "Number one, Mr. Speaker" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments