The account of man versus machine has been popular since the industrial revolution . We humans lean to plume ourselves on our cleverness as a species . No small part of our ingenuity has been dedicated toward designing devices that can help us accomplish tasks more expeditiously . In the process , we ’ve raised more questions about whether car are superior to humanity .
There ’s no interrogation that electronic computer are equal to of making billions of complex calculation in a fraction of the sentence it would take most of us to resolve just one . Computerscan store and get at more entropy on ahard drivethan you ’d find in an entire subroutine library . From a turn - crunching perspective , computers come out on top .
The challenge for computer coder is to clear biz as if they were maths problems . That involves determining the arrant way to play the game so that there are no mistake on the part of the computer . With some game , you ’ll always advance if you ’re the first thespian to make a move and you watch over perfect play . With other games , you may not win but you ’ll never do bad than a draw .
The amount of time and effort it takes to solve a game depends upon the complexness of the biz itself . Computer scientists have clear some game but others persist elusive . We ’ll face at five match-up between man and reckoner , name in no particular order , that illustrate how far computer science has elevate over the last few decades .
5: BKG 9.8 vs. Luigi Villa
In June 1979 , estimator programmer – and chess player – Hans J. Berliner watch his backgammon - playing broadcast defeat world champion Luigi Villa by a score of 7 - 1 . It was a noteworthy victory . For the first time , a computer program had vote down a human supporter at a board game .
Backgammon is a game of scheme and chance . A roll of the dice can convert imminent defeat into victory . That ’s what materialize between Villa and BKG 9.8 . player who analyzed the games say that Villa was the better player but BKG 9.8 benefited from several lucky dice rolls .
Still , the victory marked a turn decimal point incomputer news . Berliner explicate that his program did n’t rely upon a database of motion . alternatively , it would analyze the position of pieces on the circuit card and tax the risks or benefits of move each spell before making a conclusion . Later backgammon political program became even more proficient at playing against human antagonist .
The swag for the exposition game was $ 5,000 . There ’s no track record of how BKG 9.8 spent its win .
4: Chinook vs. Marion Tinsley
While some people might cerebrate ofcheckersas a obtuse cousin of cheat , the game requires strategical and tactical prowess . Perhaps none sleep together that estimable than Marion Tinsley , the cosmos champion of checker from 1955 to 1992 . Between 1950 and 1992 , Tinsley lose only five games . In August 1992 , Tinsley consort to face off against a new opposer call Chinook .
Chinook begin as a project in 1989 . Led by Jonathan Schaeffer , Robert Lake , Paul Lu and Martin Bryant , this undertaking would span more than a decade as the squad tried to puzzle out the plot of checker . The match against Tinsley in 1992 marked an early attempt to match electronic wits against a human champion .
The first serial of matches went well for Tinsley . He emerged victorious , defeat Chinook four game to two , with 33 draws . Tinsley relished the challenge and agree to a replay in 1994 . After several draws , Tinsley withdrew from the match for health reasons and resigned his title as world whiz .
Chinook go on to play and defeat other human challengers like checkers Grandmaster Don Lafferty . In 2007 , the team announced they had solved the game of checkers – complete play on both side would always leave in a draw .
3: Deep Blue vs. Garry Kasparov
The year 1996 saw one of the best - air machine versus military man matchups of all sentence : IBM ’s Deep Blue versuschessgrandmaster Garry Kasparov . Kasparov was no stranger to playing against computer opponents . In 1985 , Kasparov took part in an expo that saw him play against 32 computers at the same time . Kasparov emerged victorious in 1985 . He ’d do so again in 1996 against Deep Blue .
The match in 1996 consisted of six games . Deep Blue advance the first biz of the match . Kasparov evoke back and won the 2d game . Games three and four were both attractor . Kasparov perplex the machine in game five and six .
A year afterward , Kasparov would gather Deep Blue for a replay . The new version of Deep Blue was much more potent . Kasparov won the first game of the match . Deep Blue won the 2d plot . Games three through five were all draws . In the net biz of the match , Deep Blue defeated Kasparov and became the first computer to defeat a earth sensation Bromus secalinus player . Kasparov would quest another replay but IBM retired the Deep Blue project .
Since then , chess - playing computershave become even more proficient . According to the Federation Internationale des Echecs ( FIDE ) rating organisation , Garry Kasparov holds the highest rating for human players at 2,851 [ reservoir : World Chess Championship ] . But now , a cheat computer political program called Rybka has an estimated rating of more than 3,000 point depending upon the hardware supporting it [ source : CHESS ] .
2: Quackle vs. David Boys
It was 2007 in Toronto , Canada , when a computer political platform call Quackle beat out formerScrabbleworld maven David Boys in a solidification of five matches . The minds behind Quackle let in another top Scrabble player , Jason Katz - Brown . Quackle is an open - seed Scrabble programme and is uncommitted for download on the vane .
To get to Boys , the Quackle team had to first qualify in preliminary tourney . Another Scrabble program called Maven competed with Quackle . The program that registered the best ratio of profits to losses earned the right to challenge Boys . Quackle came out ahead .
By build a vast database of words , computer programmers can create savagely efficacious synthetic opponent . The figurer programs scan the board for potential give-and-take , sometimes linking letters in unexpected way . David Boys reportedly shrugged off the personnel casualty , proclaiming that it ’s still better to be human than a machine [ source : The Chronicle of Higher Education ] .
1: MoGoTW vs. Catalin Taranu
Go is a game thatcomputershave difficulty with traditionally . Played on a board with a grid of either nine by nine or 19 by 19 argumentation , the game pits two players against each other in an attempt to hold territory using black and white stones . The participant have the black stones snuff it first , placing a stone at an intersection of two lines on the grid . The musician throw the white stones go next . The two players attempt to control territory on the gameboard by surrounding their opposition stones with their own .
The game is tough for reckoner to play . Unlike games likechessandcheckers , Go gets more complicated the longer the plot lasts . In chess and checkers , you remove piece during bid as they ’re captivate . In Go , you ’re placing more Lucy Stone on the board until you move into an endgame . For this and other reason , calculator syllabus have had trouble keeping up with human players .
But in July 2010 , the MoGoTW program turn tail on 512 cores of the Cray XT4 / XT5 supercomputer defeated professional Go player Catalin Taranu in a 19 by 19 Go catch . The computer had a seven - Isidor Feinstein Stone handicap and win by just 1.5 peak .
While Taranu ’s loss may note a new era in data processor dominance in gambling , it might be premature to dismiss world . We ’re canny creatures – we ’re not ready to say " game over " just yet .
