There have been two recent articles, summarising the recent rematches between man and the machine (Kasparov and Deep Jr). The first article is on INQ7, entitled AI: Man Versus Machine. The second article is on the Daily Forty-Niner: The Myth of Man vs. Machine.

The theme of the articles is quite similar. The great challenge of Chess is acknowledged, but it seems people have asserted that AI is on the same level as Grand Champion; it's time to move on to something more challenging.

Good articles for the most part, but "AI: Man vs. Machine" had some odd things to say. For example: "Also, all the games of human's are accessible to computer chess programmers, while humans are kept in the dark about how well chess computers will play." I was under the impression that Kasparov, at least, had a seen a few games the computer had played and at best had a reasonable idea of how the computer played. I could be wrong in this, but if so that would seem to give the computer an advantage. I know my when my brother and friend are playing against people they know, they practice playing against the plays that are favourites of their opponent.

Other slight problem was this comment "This article is all about artificial intelligence (AI) and its best application today." I had thought that AIs best application was in pattern matching, logic involving probabilities and solving complex algorithms simply, not playing chess? But this could also just be my opinion ;)

Thanks for reading,
rythos