DomainK Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 You're correct in saying the problem doesn't work for N = 2 (and 3). For n = 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, its fairly straight forward to find a solution. The following is a screen shot of the computer output for the N Queens algorithm for N = 8. It doesn't just find one solution where 8 queens can be placed on a 8 x 8 chessboard but all solutions. 1 designates the presence of a queen while 0 designates its absence. Dude, seriously, you don't have to write an algorithm for everything.
EnterTheVoid Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 ^ I was working on it at that time, just out of self interest :)
Mariyam Posted April 7, 2011 Posted April 7, 2011 Dude' date=' seriously, you don't have to write an algorithm for everything.[/quote'] My thoughts too. He solved it using the help of a computer. You did it without a computer. Of course, he got all the possible solutions for the 8 queen problem and that is commendable. And he made a chess board out of 1s and 0s, which looks cool. So mad props to you Sree, but its still cheating :P I heard that if you use too much algorithm the Internet will explode :nervous:
EnterTheVoid Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 I heard that if you use too much algorithm the Internet will explode :nervous: The internet will explode if you search for the word "Google" in the search engine Google. You've been warned. Heres another interesting peace of trivia for chess affection-ados: In 1997, IBM pitted their ass kicking chess super computer "Deep Blue" against Gary Kasparov, then the world's GREATEST chess player, in a series of chess games. Deep Blue won the 6 match series with 2 wins, 1 loss and 3 draws. Kasparov was miffed, accused IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch. IBM politely decline and resigned Deep Blue instead. Deep Blue used a technique called "Brute Force" and was apparently capable of some 2 million calculations per second. Kasparov was no match. This was what Kasparov was up against:
EnterTheVoid Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 I'd love to play but unfortunately, I don't get much time these days. Travel and jet lag don't help either.
Asoka Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 The internet will explode if you search for the word "Google" in the search engine Google. You've been warned. Heres another interesting peace of trivia for chess affection-ados: In 1997, IBM pitted their ass kicking chess super computer "Deep Blue" against Gary Kasparov, then the world's GREATEST chess player, in a series of chess games. Deep Blue won the 6 match series with 2 wins, 1 loss and 3 draws. Kasparov was miffed, accused IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch. IBM politely decline and resigned Deep Blue instead. Deep Blue used a technique called "Brute Force" and was apparently capable of some 2 million calculations per second. Kasparov was no match. This was what Kasparov was up against: There was human interference in that Kaspy-Deep Blue match. Gross cheating. IBM dismantled the supercomputer and did not allow any further investigations to save their face. No computer is any match for a top chess player playing at his best inspite of its massive advantages. Anand and Kramnik in subsequent clashes have managed to hold their own/do better against even stronger supercomputers.
DomainK Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 The internet will explode if you search for the word "Google" in the search engine Google. You've been warned. Heres another interesting peace of trivia for chess affection-ados: In 1997, IBM pitted their ass kicking chess super computer "Deep Blue" against Gary Kasparov, then the world's GREATEST chess player, in a series of chess games. Deep Blue won the 6 match series with 2 wins, 1 loss and 3 draws. Kasparov was miffed, accused IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch. IBM politely decline and resigned Deep Blue instead. Deep Blue used a technique called "Brute Force" and was apparently capable of some 2 million calculations per second. Kasparov was no match. This was what Kasparov was up against: There was human interference in that Kaspy-Deep Blue match]. Gross cheating. IBM dismantled the supercomputer and did not allow any further investigations to save their face[/b. No computer is any match for a top chess player playing at his best inspite of its massive advantages. Anand and Kramnik in subsequent clashes have managed to hold their own/do better against even stronger supercomputers. Precisely. The way IBM refused to play anymore games and dismantled the computer, it was as good as admittance of guilt. The accusation was that an individual/group of individuals were playing using Deep Blue's analytical ability. And from IBM's reaction, I am inclined to believe that.
EnterTheVoid Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 There was human interference in that Kaspy-Deep Blue match. Gross cheating. IBM dismantled the supercomputer and did not allow any further investigations to save their face. No computer is any match for a top chess player playing at his best inspite of its massive advantages. Anand and Kramnik in subsequent clashes have managed to hold their own/do better against even stronger supercomputers. Precisely. The way IBM refused to play anymore games and dismantled the computer' date=' it was as good as admittance of guilt. The accusation was that an individual/group of individuals were playing using Deep Blue's analytical ability. And from IBM's reaction, I am inclined to believe that.[/quote'] IBM never said WHY they dismantled Deep Blue, so there is grounds to be suspicious. But Kasparov's tantrum of Deep Blue showing signs of intelligence and creativity as a defense to his cheating accusation is laughable. IF human interference was involved, it was during the matches where the developers would modify the code to fix up any weaknesses in Deep Blues games (This was perfectly within the limits, this type of human intervention was allowed BETWEEN games and not DURING the game). Kasparov's tantrum was that the computer failed to fall for a trap it fell twice before. Kasparov demanded a print out of the logs which IBM happily provided (The published them on the net for everyone to see). Either way, this was a MASSIVE step in artificial intelligence.
b555 Posted April 8, 2011 Author Posted April 8, 2011 sree find some sources here: http://www.liacs.nl/~kosters/nqueens/nqueens_feb2009.pdf http://www.jsomers.com/nqueen_demo/nqueens.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/50591134/195/The-8-Queens-Problem
Mariyam Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 The internet will explode if you search for the word "Google" in the search engine Google. You've been warned. Me think Sree here is taking us for a ride. This ain't no super computer. My home theater system's vertical speakers look like this. Why can a super computer beat a chess champ? I mean, how did the computer learn so much. It is designed and taught chess by humans who are inferior to a world champion. Why does the machine win? I want to play against one. I'd give it 20% chance.
EnterTheVoid Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 Why can a super computer beat a chess champ? I mean' date=' how did the computer learn so much. It is designed and taught chess by humans who are inferior to a world champion. Why does the machine win?[/quote'] :facepalm: Oh, come on now, a simple google search returns about a gazillion results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/ http://www.chesscorner.com/games/deepblue/deepblu.htm http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=146
akshayxyz Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 ^^ Mariyam is being sarcastic I guess or plain ignorant.
Asoka Posted April 8, 2011 Posted April 8, 2011 This is what Topalov used against Anand in Sofia 2010. http://players.chessdom.com/veselin-topalov/topalov-blue-gene-p
DomainK Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 For me, if he acts like a thief, he most probably is one. The way they dismantled the computer at the mere suggestion of cheating is very suggestive. Why not let the landmark AI revolution of a computer play a few more games? But no, they had to dismantle it because they were cheats.
akshayxyz Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 "Owing to an insufficient sample of games between Deep Blue and officially rated chess players, a chess rating for Deep Blue was not established." That means Kasparov is still best ever, until some AI comes and plays enough games to earn ELO rating.
Asoka Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 "Owing to an insufficient sample of games between Deep Blue and officially rated chess players, a chess rating for Deep Blue was not established." That means Kasparov is still best ever, until some AI comes and plays enough games to earn ELO rating. Fischer and Capablanca say hi.
akshayxyz Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 Fischer and Capablanca say hi. :facepalm: Yes I know those names too. There is no point bringing up yet another "Bradman vs Sachin" comparison.
EnterTheVoid Posted April 9, 2011 Posted April 9, 2011 Its also worth noting that Deep Blue was not truly intelligent as it couldn't think for itself. It doesn't understand a chess position but searches through all possible sequences blindly. This is a good read on this topic: http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/courses/ai/cache/mcdermott.html
Recommended Posts