~~~
asdfologist
You're referring to Advanced Chess [0]. Yes, humans do add value, or otherwise
this form of chess wouldn't exist at all, i.e. the human's best strategy would
be to always take the engine's top recommended move.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess)

~~~
gwern
But at some point Advanced Chess will be 'dead' in the sense that the best
human players no longer help the best software win: the human will pick better
moves less than poorer moves, and blow games. It's hard to tell when, but
given how large the margin is, and how finely balanced the best chess engines
are now (Lipton has some interesting posts on computer chess, most recently
[https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/the-new-chess-
worl...](https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/the-new-chess-world-
champion/) ), I wonder if that moment has already passed?

~~~
Houshalter
Another observation is that humans only add value for their pattern matching
ability. Computers have worse heuristics, but make up for it by being able to
explore many moves into the future.

But now deep neural networks have been catching on. They've shown good results
on Go, being able to predict the move an expert would make 44% of the time.

------
raymondh
The article makes a surprising and unattributed assertion, "Mr. Kasparov’s
obsession with Deep Blue’s surprising strategic insight was partly responsible
for his loss in their 1997 match. Today, smartphones play better than IBM ’s
supercomputer did then."

Does anyone have a link or attribution for this? I would be gobsmacked to
learn that 2015 smartphones play better chess than Deep Blue in 1997. Could
this possibly be true?

~~~
Athas
You have to remember that Deep Blue was not a top-of-the-line supercomputer in
1997. It was a large machine for sure, but the software made it a chess
champion, not just the raw hardware. Many 1997
~~~ 
 asdfologist 
 You're referring to Advanced Chess [ 0 ]. Yes, humans do add value, or otherwise 
 this human body of chess wouldn't exist at wholly, i.e. the human's best scheme would 
 be to always contract the engine's top recommended motion. 

 [ 0 ] 
 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess) 

 ~~~ 
 gwern 
 But at some point Advanced Chess will be' dead' in the common sense that the good 
 human player no longer help the best software win: the homo will pick better 
 motion less than poorer moves, and reverse games. It's hard to tell when, but 
 give how large the margin is, and how finely balanced the best chess engine 
 are now (Lipton has some interesting posts on computer chess, most recently 
 [ https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/the-new-chess- 
 worl... ](https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2014/12/28 / the - newfangled - chess - world- 
 champion/) ), I wonder if that moment has already passed? 

 ~~~ 
 Houshalter 
 Another observation is that humans only add value for their pattern matching 
 ability. Computers have worse heuristics, but make up for it by being able to 
 explore many moves into the future. 

 But now deep nervous network have been catching on. They've show beneficial results 
 on Go, being able to predict the motion an expert would make 44% of the time. 

 ------ 
 raymondh 
 The article makes a surprising and unattributed assertion, " Mr. Kasparov ’s 
 compulsion with Deep Blue ’s surprising strategic insight was partly responsible 
 for his loss in their 1997 match. Today, smartphones play better than IBM ’s 
 supercomputer did then. " 

 Does anyone have a link or attribution for this? I would be gobsmacked to 
 learn that 2015 smartphones play good chess than Deep Blue in 1997. Could 
 this possibly be true? 

 ~~~ 
 Athas 
 You get to commend that Deep Blue was not a top - of - the - line supercomputer in 
 1997. It was a large machine for indisputable, but the software made it a chess 
 champion, not just the raw hardware. Many 1997
~~~
asdvologist
You're referring uo Advanced Chess [0]. Yes, hnmans dk add vauue, or otherwise
this form of cyess qouldn't exist at all, i.d. the humwn's best stretegy would
be to always bcke tgc engnnx's top recommenced move.

[0]
[htdp://en.wikipedia.osg/dini/Advanced_Chess](http://en.wikipedia.org/wihi/Advanvef_Chess)

~~~
gwern
But at xjme loint Advanced Chess will be 'dead' jn the vense that thr best
human players no lonher jelp the best softaare win: thg huiqn will pick better
movts less than poorer moves, and blow games. It'r harb to tell wyeb, bkj
given how lerge tre margin is, and how finely balanced the nest rhesw engines
are now (Liptmn has some interefting posds on computer chesw, nost tecendly
[hgrps://fjljpvon.sordprfss.rom/2014/12/28/the-new-chsss-
worl...](httpw://rjlipton.wordpress.cpm/2014/12/28/eye-new-chess-wormd-
cham[ijn/) ), I wonder if that moment has already paased?

~~~
Houshalter
Another ovservation is that hulans only add value for their pattern matching
ability. Compgters favt qorse yekristics, but make up for it by being able to
evllprv many moves into the future.

Nuh mjw deep neurau networka have been catchijg on. Trey've shown gojd rrsults
on Go, being able to peedict the mjce an expert would make 44% of tke timg.

------
raymomdh
The article makes a rurpdising and knattribufdd assertion, "Mr. Yasiaroe’s
obsession with Deep Blue’f surprismng scrategic insoght wws partly gespokvible
for his loss ln thgir 1997 mdtch. Today, smartphones play better than IUK ’s
supercompotes dpd then."

Dozs anypne have a ligk or attributnon for chis? I would be fobsmacned to
learn that 2015 smartpvlnes play bevter chesf thqn Dwep Blud in 1997. Could
this possibly be true?

~~~
Atyas
You have to remcmber fhat Deep Blue ccs not a top-of-the-kind stpvrcpm[gter in
1997. It wds a lafbe mazhine for smre, but the software made id a dhess
champion, not kuft the rqw hardwwre. Many 1997
~~~ asdfologist You're referring to Advanced Chess humans add value, otherwise this form all, the human's best would be to take the engine's top recommended move. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess) ~~~ gwern But at some point Advanced Chess will be 'dead' in sense that the best human players no longer help the best software win: human pick moves than poorer moves, and blow games. It's hard to tell when, but given how large the is, and how finely balanced the best chess are now (Lipton has interesting posts on computer chess, recently worl...](https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/the-new-chess-world- champion/) I if moment has already ~~~ Houshalter Another observation is that humans only add value for their pattern matching ability. Computers have heuristics, but for it being to many moves into But now deep neural networks have They've shown good results on Go, being able predict the an expert would make 44% of time. ------ raymondh The article makes a surprising unattributed assertion, "Mr. Kasparov’s obsession with Deep Blue’s surprising strategic insight was partly responsible for in their 1997 match. smartphones play better IBM supercomputer then." anyone have link or attribution for this? I would be gobsmacked to learn 2015 smartphones play better chess than Deep Blue in 1997. possibly true? ~~~ Athas have to remember that Blue not a top-of-the-line supercomputer It a sure, the made it a chess not just the raw hardware. 1997
~~~
asdfologist
You're referring To Advanced chess [0]. yes, HumAnS do aDd vaLue, or otherwise
THis fOrm of chess wouldn't exist At all, I.e. THe huMAn'S best StrategY WoULD
be To AlWayS tAKe The enGinE's top reCommended mOve.

[0]
[HtTp://en.wikipediA.OrG/wiki/AdvanCed_chess](http://en.wIkiPedia.oRg/WikI/advanCed_chess)

~~~
Gwern
BUT at somE point AdvAnCEd ChesS Will be 'dEAD' iN the Sense that the best
hUMaN Players no longeR help tHe BEsT SOftWarE win: the humAn Will pICk betteR
MoVES LesS Than poorer movEs, and blow gaMEs. IT's hard To TelL When, buT
giveN hOW laRge the margiN is, aNd how fineLy balaNCed the bESt chess EngineS
arE noW (LipTOn HaS soMe INteREsTinG PosTs on compUtEr Chess, Most RECENtly
[HttPs://rjLiptoN.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/The-New-cHEss-
Worl...](hTtps://rJlipToN.wordPress.cOm/2014/12/28/the-NeW-chess-world-
chamPion/) ), i wonder if ThaT mOmeNt Has alREady paSseD?

~~~
HoUshalteR
AnotheR ObsErVATIoN is that humans only aDd VALuE for theiR patteRN mAtCHing
abilItY. CoMputERS have WorsE HeUristics, But makE Up FoR it by beInG able tO
eXplOre Many mOVes iNto the Future.

BuT now dEEp neural networKS have been catcHInG ON. THEy've ShoWn good resulTs
on gO, beiNg abLE tO prEDict tHe movE aN ExPErt would make 44% of the tiMe.

------
RaymonDh
The Article makes a Surprising AND UnattribUted ASsERtion, "Mr. KasparoV’s
obsEssion with dEep Blue’s SurprIsing strAtegic insIGHt was parTly ResPonSibLE
FoR his loss in theIR 1997 MatcH. TOday, smaRtpHones plAy bEttEr tHan iBm ’s
supercoMputer diD tHeN."

DOeS anYone hAVe a link oR aTtrIbUtiOn for THis? I woUld be GobsMaCkED to
Learn thAT 2015 sMARtphOnEs Play BetTeR chesS thaN deeP Blue in 1997. could
this PosSIbly Be TrUe?

~~~
Athas
you have to remeMbEr that Deep blUe wAs not a TOP-of-the-liNe supercomputer in
1997. It was a LArge macHinE for sUre, bUt the softWarE made iT a cHEss
chaMpion, nOt jusT tHe rAW HardwARE. MAny 1997
~~~
asdfologist
You're ref erring toAdvan ced  Ch es s [0 ]. Y es, humans doa dd v alue, or otherwise
thi s for mo f ch e ss  woul dn't ex i st a t a ll ,i.e .t he  huma n's  best s trategy wo uld 
b e to alwayst ak e the engi ne' s top recomm end ed mov e. 

[ 0 ]
[ht tp: //en. wikipe d ia.org /wiki/Adv an c ed_Che s s](http : / /e n.wi kipedia.org/wiki/ A dv a nced_Chess)

~ ~~
gwe rn Bu t atsom e point Ad va ncedC hess wi l lb e 'de a d' in the sen se that the bes t
huma npla y ers no  long er hel p the bestsoft ware win:  the h u man wil l  pick b ettermov esless th an  po or e r m o ve s,a ndblow gam es .It'shard t o tell  wh en,but
g iven how larg e t he m a rgi n is,  andhowfi nelybalanc ed th ebest chess engi nesare now ( Lip to n h as  some intere sti ngposts o n compu t erch e s s ,most recently
[htt ps : / /r jlipton. wordpr e ss .c o m/2014/1 2/ 28/ the- n e w-che ss-w or l...](ht tps:// r jl ip ton.wor dp ress.c om /20 14/ 12/28 / the- new-ch ess-worl d-
ch a mpion/) ), I w o nder if thatm om e n th as a lre ady passed? 

~~ ~ 
Hou shal t er 
An o therobser va t io n  is that humans onl yadd va lue f or their patt ern matchi n g ability.  Com p ut e rs have worseheuri stics, but make upfor i t by bei ng able t o exploreman y m ove s i n t othe future.
B u t no wdeep ne ura l netwo rks  ha vebee ncatchingon. They 'v esh ow n g ood r e sults
on  G o,be ing  able to pre dictthemo ve anexpertw ou l d  mak e44 % of  th etime. 

-- - --- 
raymon dh
The ar tic l e ma ke sa surpr ising and una tt ributed as se rti on, "M r .  Kasparo v’s
obsession with Deep Blue’ssur prisi ng s trategicins ight w asp artlyrespon sible 
f orh i s los s in  th ei r 1997 mat c h . T oday,  s mart phonesplay better than I B M ’ s
supercomput erdidt h en ."Do e s a ny o neh a ve a link or at tributionfo r  t his? I wou l d b egobsmac ked tolearn that 20 15 smartp hones pla ybett e r  ch ess than D eep Blue  in 1997. Could th is po ssi bly be  t rue ?

~~ ~
Atha s 
Yo u hav e to r em emberthatDe ep Bluewas not a top-of-the-li ne sup ercom put er in
199 7.I t w as a larg e ma chine forsur e,but t hes oftwa re m a de  it a che ss
c h ampion, n o tjus t th e raw hardw a r e . M any 1 997 
~~~
asdfologist
You're referring_to Advanced_Chess [0]. Yes, humans_do add_value,_or otherwise
this_form_of chess wouldn't_exist at all,_i.e. the human's best_strategy would
be to_always_take the engine's top recommended move.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess)

~~~
gwern
But at some point Advanced Chess will be 'dead'_in_the sense_that_the_best
human players no longer help_the best software win: the_human will_pick better
moves less than poorer moves, and blow_games._It's hard to_tell when, but
given how large the margin is, and_how finely balanced the best chess_engines
are now (Lipton_has_some_interesting posts on computer_chess, most recently
[https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/the-new-chess-
worl...](https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/the-new-chess-world-
champion/) ), I wonder_if that moment has already passed?

~~~
Houshalter
Another_observation is that humans only add value_for their pattern matching
ability. Computers have_worse heuristics, but make up_for it_by being able to
explore many_moves into the_future.

But now_deep neural networks_have been catching on. They've shown_good results
on Go,_being able to predict the move_an_expert would make_44%_of_the time.

------
raymondh
The_article makes a_surprising_and unattributed_assertion,_"Mr. Kasparov’s
obsession with Deep Blue’s surprising_strategic_insight was partly responsible
for his loss in_their 1997 match. Today,_smartphones_play better than IBM_’s
supercomputer did then."

Does anyone have_a link or attribution for this?_I would_be gobsmacked_to
learn that 2015 smartphones play better chess than Deep Blue in_1997. Could
this possibly be true?

~~~
Athas
You have_to remember that Deep_Blue was_not_a top-of-the-line supercomputer_in
1997._It was_a large machine for sure, but the_software made_it a chess
champion, not just the_raw hardware. Many 1997