DOCSLIB.ORG

Artificial Intelligence and the Making of IBM's Deep Blue

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Artificial Intelligence and the Making of IBM's Deep Blue The Deep Blue Chess Computer Randy Moulic, PhD(EE), IEEE Life Fellow Associate Professor, Computer Science and Engineering University of Alaska-Anchorage June 26th, 2014 For 1000s of Years Man Built Machines to Enhance and Extend Human Capabilities in the Physical World Man’s intelligence, creativity and autonomous nature have been at the core of these advancements “Machines for the Mind” Computers Enrich Our Daily Lives, and Free Our Minds by Handling Tedious, Repetitious Tasks ….. can computers exhibit such human-like intelligence, creativity and autonomous behaviors? Chess: an Olympic Sport for the Mind • Critical thinking • Comprehension • Creativity • Analysis • Knowledge and memory Winning at chess; being the world champion has been a measure of a highly developed, creative mind ! Could a machine beat the best human chess player in the world? …a Machine that Appears to Think, Solve and Create, Like the Human Mind ? The Turk (1770 – 1854) Charles Babbage (1864) • In 1864, Charles Babbage described how chess could be programmed on his unique, special purpose, Analytical Engine • Babbage was never able to raise funding to build the Analytical Engine Oh, by the way it was a “computer” design Claude E. Shannon Computational Requirements of Chess 3 major computational tasks are necessary in a computer chess “engine”: • Move generation of all possible legal moves • “Move tree” search • Evaluation Computational Requirements of Chess Move option #30 Move option #3 Move option #2 Move option #1 ~30 possible moves per player per ply, a depth of 12 ply requires the generation, searching and evaluation, of 4.7 x 10 20 positions !! “Move tree” A Deeper Look Into The Computational Tasks Simple “Material” Based Evaluation • Evaluation function for a move based on C. Shannon’s work can be defined as : f(P) = 200(K-K') + 9(Q-Q') + 5(R-R') + 3(B-B'+N-N') + (P-P') - 0.5(D-D'+S-S'+I-I') + 0.1(M-M') + ... • Where: K, Q, R, B, N, P are the number of white kings, queens, rooks, bishops, knights and pawns on the board. D, S, I are doubled, blocked or isolated pawns. M is mobility or number of legal moves available. * from C. Shannon’s original work Min-Max Move Tree Searching Minimax: Assume that both White and Black play their best moves. •Perform a depth-first search and evaluate the leaf nodes •Choose child node with highest value if it is White to move •Choose child node with lowest value if it is Black to move Ply 0 White White Black Black Ply 1 White White Ply 2 (Stored or chosen “move” ) Alpha-Beta Pruning Position is so good for White (or Black) that the opponent with best play that some branches of the tree would never be followed – and can be “pruned” •Alpha value: White’s guaranteed score or better ( start at infinity) •Beta value: Black’s guaranteed score or less ( start at infinity) •If Beta is less than Alpha, then position will never be occur •If search tree below is evaluated left to right, then search can skip searching further along the greyed-out sub trees, as they will not influence the root node score White Whi Ply 0 te Blac Black k Whi Ply 1 te Wh Ply 2 White ite Computational Requirements of Chess Move option #30 Move option #3 Move option #2 Move option #1 ~30 possible moves per player per ply, Clever a depth ofsearch 12 ply requires techniques the can reduce generation, searching and evaluation, of 4.7 x 10 20 positions e.g. “prune” !! the search to ~ 1 x 10 11 positions “Move tree” How Fast Does a Computer Need To Be To Analyze 1 x 10 11 Board Positions ? • A computer chess program, like “Deep Blue” needs to execute about 1,000 instructions to generate, search and evaluate a chess position • ( 1 x 10 11 board positions ) x ( 1,000 computer instructions ) = 1 x 10 14 instructions • In tournament play, 40 moves must be completed in first 90 minutes, or ~ 2 minutes/move computation rate required is ~ 10 12 instructions, or ops/sec Computer Performance Trends 1.E+18 1.E+17 1.E+16 1.E+15 1.E+14 Supercomputers 1.E+13 Estimated compute 1.E+12 requirement to play world class chess Desktop PCs 1.E+11 Peak Computing Capacity, ops/sec Capacity, Computing Peak 1.E+10 1.E+09 Smartphones 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year Development Time Line for Deep Blue ChipTest, Deep Thought (Carnegie-Mellon, 1985-1989) Deep Thought II (IBM Research 1989 – 1991) Deep Blue ( IBM Research 1991 – 1997) “Chiptest”: Custom, chess-specific chip Building Deep Blue: Chess-specific VLSI chip • Massive searching capacity, leveraging both hardware and software • Special function chip which provided move generation, search, and evaluation capabilities • Evaluation function includes simple “material”, but also position, King safety, and temp of the game. Building Deep Blue: 8 way- Parallel Chess-Specific PCI Board • Massive searching capacity, leveraging both hardware and software • Special function chip which provided move generation, search, and evaluation capabilities • Evaluation function includes simple “material”, but also position, King safety, and temp of the game. Building Deep Blue: 480 way Parallel Chess-Specific Supercomputer • Massively parallel search (29 general purpose computer cluster and 480 chess-specific processors) • Large opening, extended books, and endgame database of previous games experience Kasparov vs IBMs Deep Blue, New York, 1997 Is Deep Blue Intelligent? “… (Deep Blue has) a weird kind (of intelligence) …” Garry Kasparov, 1996 “I used to think chess required thought. Now, I realize it doesn’t.” Douglas Hofstadter, 1997 “Does it really matter if unbounded brute force analysis can achieve similar results? “ Randy Moulic For more information about Deep Blue, please look at : “Deep Blue”, Murray Campbell, Joe Hoane, Feng-Hsuing Hsu, Artificial Intelligence, 134, (2002), p57-83. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Catur Komputer Dari Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia, Ensiklopedia Bebas
    Deep Blue Dari Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas Belum Diperiksa Deep Blue Deep Blue adalah sebuah komputer catur buatan IBM. Deep Blue adalah komputer pertama yang memenangkan sebuah permainan catur melawan seorang juara dunia (Garry Kasparov) dalam waktu standar sebuah turnamen catur. Kemenangan pertamanya (dalam pertandingan atau babak pertama) terjadi pada 10 Februari 1996, dan merupakan permainan yang sangat terkenal. Namun Kasparov kemudian memenangkan 3 pertandingan lainnya dan memperoleh hasil remis pada 2 pertandingan selanjutnya, sehingga mengalahkan Deep Blue dengan hasil 4-2. Deep Blue lalu diupgrade lagi secara besar-besaran dan kembali bertanding melawan Kasparov pada Mei 1997. Dalam pertandingan enam babak tersebut Deep Blue menang dengan hasil 3,5- 2,5. Babak terakhirnya berakhir pada 11 Mei. Deep Blue menjadi komputer pertama yang mengalahkan juara dunia bertahan. Komputer ini saat ini sudah "dipensiunkan" dan dipajang di Museum Nasional Sejarah Amerika (National Museum of American History),Amerika Serikat. http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue Catur komputer Dari Wikipedia bahasa Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas Komputer catur dengan layar LCD pada 1990-an Catur komputer adalah arsitektur komputer yang memuat perangkat keras dan perangkat lunak komputer yang mampu bermain caturtanpa kendali manusia. Catur komputer berfungsi sebagai alat hiburan sendiri (yang membolehkan pemain latihan atau hiburan jika lawan manusia tidak ada), sebagai alat bantu kepada analisis catur, untuk pertandingan catur komputer dan penelitian untuk kognisi manusia. Kategori Deep Blue (chess computer) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Deep Blue Deep Blue was a chess-playing computer developed by IBM. On May 11, 1997, the machine, with human intervention between games, won the second six-game match against world champion Garry Kasparov, two to one, with three draws.[1] Kasparov accused IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Thought Wins Fredkin Intermediate Prize Hans Berliner
    AI Magazine Volume 10 Number 2 (1989) (© AAAI) CHESS REPORT Deep Thought Wins Fredkin Intermediate Prize Hans Berliner ince May 1988, Deep Thought almost all potential contenders. The S (DT), the creation of a team of two first place finishers drew with students at Carnegie Mellon Universi- each other. Hitech led the field at the ty, has been attracting a lot of notice. halfway point but lost to DT in round In the Fredkin Masters Open, May 3 and threw away a winning position 28–30, DT tied for second in a field of against Fidelity in round four (because over 20 masters and ahead of three of a programming bug). The level of other computers, including Hitech play in this tournament was by far the and Chiptest (the winner of the 1987 best ever in a computer event, and the North American Computer Champi- winners clearly deserved their top onships). In August at the U.S. Open, places. DT scored 8.5, 3.5 to tie for eigh- Ten days later, DT achieved the teenth place with Arnold Denker greatest computer success to date. It among others. Its performance was tied for first with GM Tony Miles in marred by hardware and software the prestigious Software Toolworks bugs. However, DT astounded every- Open in Los Angeles with a score of one by beating International Master 6.5, 1.5. Several GMs played in this (IM) Igor Ivanov, the perennial winner tournament, including former World of the U.S. Grand Prix circuit prize, Champion Mikhail Tal of the USSR. who is generally regarded to be as In the tournament, DT became the strong as the average Grandmaster first computer to beat a GM in a regu- (GM).
    [Show full text]
  • INSIDE: February 2002 PHYSICS NEWS NEWS Volume 11, No
    INSIDE: February 2002 PHYSICS NEWS NEWS Volume 11, No. 2 IN 2001 A Publication of The American Physical Society http://www.aps.org/apsnews Electronic Reminders Biophysics Help Boost Membership, Workshop Planned for Voting Rates Fall 2002 APS membership for fiscal year new members coming in stayed The APS, together with its Di- 2002 is up by almost 500 members roughly the same this year,” she vision of Biological Physics, is compared to the same time last says. “We seem to be doing better organizing a topical conference year. An end-of-year count shows at retaining members once they entitled “Opportunities in Biology that the total number of members join,” something she ascribes to for Physicists,” to be held Sep- now stands at 42,007, compared “increased communication with tember 27-29 2002 in Boston, to 41,570 in fiscal year 2001. Trish members and a great membership Massachusetts. The conference Lettieri, APS Director of Member- staff who are eager to respond to is aimed primarily at graduate ship, attributes the increase in part member inquiries.” students and postdocs who are to a series of electronic renewal Electronic reminder notices reported that response was up 24% August shows sharp spikes coincid- considering moving their areas notices that are sent out to current also proved useful in boosting the over last year, with 23.4% of the ing with electronic reminder of research concentration to members during their renewal number of ballots cast in the an- APS membership voting, compared notices sent to the entire member- biological topics, not at those cycle, and followed up by personal nual APS general election.
    [Show full text]
  • Results of Acm's Eighteenth Computer Chess
    MEETINGREPORT RESULTS OF ACM’S EIGHTEENTH COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP MONTY NEWBORN and DANNY KOPEC CHIPTEST-M, a chess-playing computer program devel- at least one level deeper than its opponents searched oped by a team of three graduate students at Carnegie- and apparently too much of an advantage for any of Mellon University, took first place at ACM’s 18th North them to overcome. The program is only two years old American Computer Chess Championship held at the and has less chess knowledge than its main rivals, but ACM/IEEE-CS Fall Joint Computer Conference in Dal- the enormous tree that it searches more than makes up las, Texas last October. With the strongest field ever for these shortcomings. assembled for a computer chess event, including cur- Hsu expects to improve the program over the coming rent World Champion CRAY BLITZ and former World year by introducing parallelism. His chip can be repli- Champion BELLE, CHIPTEST-M overpowered the field cated, and with the talent that has created the current of 12 with a perfect 4-0 performance to capture the version, a parallel version can be anticipated which $2000 first place prize. En route to winning the champi- will be significantly stronger. The program was as- onship, the program defeated CRAY BLITZ in the third signed a 2584 performance rating at the Dallas event round and then routinely disposed of SUN PHOENIX in by Ken Thompson’s rating program. This salys that the final fourth round. CRAY BLITZ finished in second CHIPTEST-M was playing at the level of a Grandmaster place, while SUN PHOENIX settled for third.
    [Show full text]
  • The Design and Implementation of an Adaptive Chess Game
    California State University, San Bernardino CSUSB ScholarWorks Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of aduateGr Studies 9-2015 THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ADAPTIVE CHESS GAME Mehdi Peiravi mehdi peiravi Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd Part of the Robotics Commons Recommended Citation Peiravi, Mehdi, "THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ADAPTIVE CHESS GAME" (2015). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 228. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/228 This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of aduateGr Studies at CSUSB ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ADAPTIVE CHESS GAME A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Computer Science by Mehdi Peiravi September 2015 THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ADAPTIVE CHESS GAME A Project Presented to the Faculty of California State University, San Bernardino by Mehdi Peiravi September 2015 Approved by: Haiyan Qiao, Committee Chair, Computer Science Kerstin Voigt, Committee Member Ernesto Gomez, Committee Member © 2015 Mehdi Peiravi ABSTRACT In recent years, computer games have become a common form of entertainment. Fast advancement in computer technology and internet speed have helped entertainment software developers to create graphical games that keep a variety of players’ interest. The emergence of artificial intelligence systems has evolved computer gaming technology in new and profound ways.
    [Show full text]
  • FPGA Multiprocessor for Game Tree Searches Thesis to Obtain The
    FPGA Multiprocessor for Game Tree Searches António Pedro Santos Coelho Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering Supervisor: Prof. Horácio Cláudio de Campos Neto Examination Committee Chairperson: Prof. Nuno Cavaco Gomes Horta Supervisor: Prof. Horácio Cláudio de Campos Neto Members of the Committee: Prof. João Paulo Baptista de Carvalho May 2016 In the past Grandmasters came to our computer tournaments to laugh. Today they come to watch. Soon they will come to learn. Monty Newborn, computer chess tournament organizer, 1977 Acknowledgements I want to thank my supervisor Prof. Horácio Neto for his help and guiding me in the correct direction. I also want to thank my colleges and family for the massive support they have given me for so long. i Abstract This thesis explores the development of a hardware/software system that implements an algorithm for game tree searches, applied to the game of Chess. The system architecture consists of a general purpose processor that executes the software part, and by a dedicated hardware unit that implements a move generator for the game of Chess. Move generation speed is a crucial part of a game tree search algorithm. The faster the move generator, the more tree nodes can be visited per time unit, thus finding more information to help choose the next move. Even though the hardware move generator proved itself to be much faster than the software move generator in the Faile chess engine, the system has a bottleneck in making the moves available to the game engine, so future work is needed to extract the full potential from the designed hardware.
    [Show full text]
  • Roads Scholars CMU COMPUTER SCIENTISTS TACKLE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS for PENNSYLVANIA’S GOVERNMENTS
    HANS BERLINER: ICONOCLAST , P. 16 News from the School of Computer Science Issue 6.2 / Spring 2012 Roads Scholars CMU COMPUTER SCIENTISTS TACKLE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS FOR PENNSYLVANIA’S GOVERNMENTS ALSO INSIDE: D-I-Y WARHOL APP • BOOSTING U.S. FACTORIES • FACULTY, STAFF HONORED AT FOUNDERS’ DAY Calendar OF EVENTS All events to be held on the Carnegie Mellon University campus in Pittsburgh, unless otherwise noted. Dates and locations are subject to change without notice. Visit calendar.cs.cmu.edu for a complete and current listing of events. The Link provides a mosaic of the School of Computer Science: presenting issues, analyzing problems, offering occasional answers, giving April 18 May 1 June 23 exposure to faculty, students, researchers, staff Dedication Ceremony: CMUQ Research Forum SCS/ECE Boston Alumni and interdisciplinary partners. The Link strives to encourage better understanding of, and The Robert Mehrabian Noon–4 p.m. Networking Luncheon involvement in, the computer science community. Collaborative Innovation Lecture Hall 1202 and Center West Green Spine, July 1–19 Editor-in-Chief 11 a.m., Collaborative Qatar Campus Carnegie Mellon Qatar: Sum- Randal E. Bryant Innovation Center mer College Preview Program Editor May 4 July 4 Jason Togyer April 19–21 Last day of classes, spring term Spring Carnival 2012 Independence Day: No classes Contributing Writers Campus-wide May 7–15 Jennifer Bails, Tina Carr, Mark Dorgan, Final exams July 7 Meghan Holohan, Tom Imerito, April 19 SCS/ECE San Diego Alumni Mary Lynn Mack, Byron Spice Olympus
    [Show full text]
  • Rating Computer Science Via Chess in Memoriam Daniel Kopec and Hans Berliner
    Rating Computer Science Via Chess In memoriam Daniel Kopec and Hans Berliner Kenneth W. Regan Department of CSE, University at Buffalo Amherst, NY 14260 USA; [email protected] Abstract. Computer chess was originally purposed for insight into the human mind. It became a quest to get the most power out of computer hardware and software. The goal was specialized but the advances spanned multiple areas, from heuristic search to massive parallelism. Success was measured not by standard software or hardware benchmarks, nor theoretical aims like improving the ex- ponents of algorithms, but by victory over the best human players. To gear up for limited human challenge opportunities, designers of chess machines needed to forecast their skill on the human rating scale. Our thesis is that this challenge led to ways of rating computers on the whole and also rating the effectiveness of our field at solving hard problems. We describe rating systems, the workings of chess programs, advances from computer science, the history of some prominent machines and programs, and ways of rating them. 1 Ratings Computer chess was already recognized as a field when LNCS began in 1971. Its early history, from seminal papers by Shannon [1] and Turing [2], after earlier work by Zuse and Wiener, has been told in [3–5] among other sources. Its later history, climaxing with humanity’s dethronement in the victory by IBM’s DEEP BLUE over Garry Kasparov and further dominance even by programs on smart- phones, will be subordinated to telling how rating the effectiveness of hardware and software components indicates the progress of computing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Gamut of Games
    AI Magazine Volume 22 Number 3 (2001) (© AAAI) Articles A Gamut of Games Jonathan Schaeffer I In 1950, Claude Shannon published his seminal make this amazing feat possible. Often over- work on how to program a computer to play chess. looked, however, is that this result was also a Since then, developing game-playing programs testament to human abilities. Considering the that can compete with (and even exceed) the abil- formidable computing power that DEEP BLUE ities of the human world champions has been a used in its 1997 exhibition match against long-sought-after goal of the AI research commu- world chess champion Garry Kasparov nity. In Shannon’s time, it would have seemed (machine: 200,000,000 chess positions a sec- unlikely that only a scant 50 years would be need- ond; man: 2 a second), one can only admire ed to develop programs that play world-class backgammon, checkers, chess, Othello, and Scrab- the human champions for withstanding the ble. These remarkable achievements are the result technological onslaught for so long. of a better understanding of the problems being Computer game research was started by solved, major algorithmic insights, and tremen- some of the luminaries in computing science dous advances in hardware technology. Computer history. In 1950, Claude Shannon published games research is one of the important success sto- his seminal paper that laid out the framework ries of AI. This article reviews the past successes, for building high-performance game-playing current projects, and future research directions for programs (Shannon 1950). In 1951, Alan Tur- AI using computer games as a research test bed.
    [Show full text]
  • IBM's Deep Blue
    Deep Blue IBM's chess playing program and its successors Overview Computer Chess . Difficult Problem . Holy Grail of Game AI History . ChipTest, ChipTest-M . Deep Thought .01 to II Technology . Hardware . Continuations . Game Databases Time Control . When to panic? Other Applications . Extensively reconfigurable Computer Chess Difficult problem – Many evaluations are “unstable” – High branching factor – Many useful “features” involve blocks of multiple pieces – Evaluations difficult for humans Holy Grail of Game AI – At first, seemed like brute-force calculation would win easily – Until 1996, humans reigned supreme Enter Deep Blue, Winner of the Grail – Won a game (in six) against world champion Garry Kasparov on February 10, 1996 – Deeper Blue won 3.5 in 6, May 1997 Technology Hardware . Each hardware chip a complete chess position evaluator . 20 billion evaluations in 3 min Continuations . Intelligently deciding when to deepen the search Game Databases . Opening, Extended, Endgame Time Control . Balancing time constraints Time Control Timed game . 40 moves in 2 hours Time Targets . Normal: remaining time divided by remaining number of moves . Panic: one third of total remaining time Cases for panic . Drop by 15 points . Previous move is in fail-low state . New move in potential “fail high” Other Applications Extensively Reconfigurable . Financial Risk Assessment . Pharmaceutical Modeling . Biomolecules . Molecular Simulations Very Fast . Can model many variables . Main evaluation in hardware . Fine-tuned in software References Campbell, Murray, A. Joseph Hoane Jr. and Feng-hsiung Hsu. Deep Blue. In: Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 134, Issues 1-2, Page 57-83. Amsterdam, Elsevier: 2002. Hsu, Feng-hsiung. Behind Deep Blue: building the computer that defeated the world chess champion.
    [Show full text]