What was the first chess engine that could beat the world champion on a standard desktop?
What was the first chess engine that could beat the world chess champion when running on a standard desktop playing at standard speeds (i.e. not blitz chess)? For concreteness, say a $1000 PC.
engines human-versus-machine
edited Feb 4 at 23:36
SmallChess
15.2k22250
asked Feb 3 at 19:04
AnushAnush
22417
add a comment |
What was the first chess engine that could beat the world chess champion when running on a standard desktop playing at standard speeds (i.e. not blitz chess)? For concreteness, say a $1000 PC.
engines human-versus-machine
edited Feb 4 at 23:36
SmallChess
15.2k22250
asked Feb 3 at 19:04
AnushAnush
22417
add a comment |
What was the first chess engine that could beat the world chess champion when running on a standard desktop playing at standard speeds (i.e. not blitz chess)? For concreteness, say a $1000 PC.
engines human-versus-machine
edited Feb 4 at 23:36
SmallChess
15.2k22250
asked Feb 3 at 19:04
AnushAnush
22417
What was the first chess engine that could beat the world chess champion when running on a standard desktop playing at standard speeds (i.e. not blitz chess)? For concreteness, say a $1000 PC.
engines human-versus-machine
engines human-versus-machine
edited Feb 4 at 23:36
SmallChess
15.2k22250
asked Feb 3 at 19:04
AnushAnush
22417
edited Feb 4 at 23:36
SmallChess
15.2k22250
asked Feb 3 at 19:04
AnushAnush
22417
edited Feb 4 at 23:36
SmallChess
15.2k22250
edited Feb 4 at 23:36
SmallChess
15.2k22250
edited Feb 4 at 23:36
SmallChess
15.2k22250
15.2k22250
asked Feb 3 at 19:04
AnushAnush
22417
asked Feb 3 at 19:04
AnushAnush
22417
asked Feb 3 at 19:04
AnushAnush
22417
22417
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Deep Blue was a super computer. In the 2006 match, Kramnik was defeated by Deep Fritz that everybody could buy.
In a November 2006 match between Deep Fritz and world chess champion
Vladimir Kramnik, the program ran on a computer system containing a
dual-core Intel Xeon 5160 CPU, capable of evaluating only 8 million
positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18
plies in the middlegame thanks to heuristics; it won 4–2.[31][32]
(source)
edited Feb 4 at 19:16
Riker
1033
answered Feb 3 at 22:18
SmallChessSmallChess
15.2k22250
4
The comparison between a 1997 supercomputer and a 2006 standard machine isn't necessarily trivial.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:20
3
@InertialIgnorance I don't know but I am sure you couldn't afford IBM Deep Blue.
– SmallChess
Feb 3 at 23:23
2
True, but I'm talking about the comparison between computational speeds. A mobile phone today is much faster than a supercomputer in the 50's, even though the latter costed way more at the time.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:25
5
@InertialIgnorance A mobile phone today would have made the supercomputer TOP 500 list in the mid 1990s, nevermind the 1950s!
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:05
2
For reference, Deep Blue was evaluating 100 million (first version) to 200 million (updated) positions per second, but to a depth of only 6-8moves on average (to a max of 20 in some cases). Deep Fritz had better heuristics, allowing it deeper searches with fewer evaluations.
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:13
|
show 11 more comments
A standard desktop today is significantly more powerful than whatever machine Deep Blue was running on in the mid-1990s against Kasparov. Since Deep Blue was the first engine to beat a world champion, that's the answer to your question.
Note that there may have been an engine before Deep Blue that, if it ran on a modern day desktop, could have beat Kasparov. But we never saw such a match happen so it's just speculation to say any earlier engine than Deep Blue.
answered Feb 3 at 19:57
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
5,153413
5
Thanks for this. It seems according to the wiki that Deep Blue was running at 11.38 GFLOPS which is roughly the speed of a cheap PC these days. However it's not 100% clear Deep Blue was better than Kasparov. The match was controversial.
– Anush
Feb 3 at 20:01
8
Note peak FLOPS and achieved FLOPS are very different things. And I'm not sure that FLOPS is actually a reasonable measure of performance in this case - Ian the HPC guy
– Ian Bush
Feb 3 at 20:30
1
Yes, the match was controversial. If you don't accept that Deep Blue was superior though, you could select the next engine that beat a world champion in a match (there's a list in the wikipedia page on "Computer Chess").
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 21:35
8
Deep Blue used significant amounts of custom hardware. It is not the answer to the question because it cannot "run on a standard desktop."
– David Richerby
Feb 4 at 14:41
3
Due to the specific hardware used by Deep Blue I am not certain that the assumption about powerful holds. A 10 year old GPU can probably still outperform a modern CPU when rendering graphics.
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Feb 4 at 16:08
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "435"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23660%2fwhat-was-the-first-chess-engine-that-could-beat-the-world-champion-on-a-standard%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Deep Blue was a super computer. In the 2006 match, Kramnik was defeated by Deep Fritz that everybody could buy.
In a November 2006 match between Deep Fritz and world chess champion
Vladimir Kramnik, the program ran on a computer system containing a
dual-core Intel Xeon 5160 CPU, capable of evaluating only 8 million
positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18
plies in the middlegame thanks to heuristics; it won 4–2.[31][32]
(source)
edited Feb 4 at 19:16
Riker
1033
answered Feb 3 at 22:18
SmallChessSmallChess
15.2k22250
4
The comparison between a 1997 supercomputer and a 2006 standard machine isn't necessarily trivial.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:20
3
@InertialIgnorance I don't know but I am sure you couldn't afford IBM Deep Blue.
– SmallChess
Feb 3 at 23:23
2
True, but I'm talking about the comparison between computational speeds. A mobile phone today is much faster than a supercomputer in the 50's, even though the latter costed way more at the time.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:25
5
@InertialIgnorance A mobile phone today would have made the supercomputer TOP 500 list in the mid 1990s, nevermind the 1950s!
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:05
2
For reference, Deep Blue was evaluating 100 million (first version) to 200 million (updated) positions per second, but to a depth of only 6-8moves on average (to a max of 20 in some cases). Deep Fritz had better heuristics, allowing it deeper searches with fewer evaluations.
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:13
|
show 11 more comments
Deep Blue was a super computer. In the 2006 match, Kramnik was defeated by Deep Fritz that everybody could buy.
In a November 2006 match between Deep Fritz and world chess champion
Vladimir Kramnik, the program ran on a computer system containing a
dual-core Intel Xeon 5160 CPU, capable of evaluating only 8 million
positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18
plies in the middlegame thanks to heuristics; it won 4–2.[31][32]
(source)
edited Feb 4 at 19:16
Riker
1033
answered Feb 3 at 22:18
SmallChessSmallChess
15.2k22250
4
The comparison between a 1997 supercomputer and a 2006 standard machine isn't necessarily trivial.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:20
3
@InertialIgnorance I don't know but I am sure you couldn't afford IBM Deep Blue.
– SmallChess
Feb 3 at 23:23
2
True, but I'm talking about the comparison between computational speeds. A mobile phone today is much faster than a supercomputer in the 50's, even though the latter costed way more at the time.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:25
5
@InertialIgnorance A mobile phone today would have made the supercomputer TOP 500 list in the mid 1990s, nevermind the 1950s!
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:05
2
For reference, Deep Blue was evaluating 100 million (first version) to 200 million (updated) positions per second, but to a depth of only 6-8moves on average (to a max of 20 in some cases). Deep Fritz had better heuristics, allowing it deeper searches with fewer evaluations.
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:13
|
show 11 more comments
Deep Blue was a super computer. In the 2006 match, Kramnik was defeated by Deep Fritz that everybody could buy.
In a November 2006 match between Deep Fritz and world chess champion
Vladimir Kramnik, the program ran on a computer system containing a
dual-core Intel Xeon 5160 CPU, capable of evaluating only 8 million
positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18
plies in the middlegame thanks to heuristics; it won 4–2.[31][32]
(source)
edited Feb 4 at 19:16
Riker
1033
answered Feb 3 at 22:18
SmallChessSmallChess
15.2k22250
Deep Blue was a super computer. In the 2006 match, Kramnik was defeated by Deep Fritz that everybody could buy.
In a November 2006 match between Deep Fritz and world chess champion
Vladimir Kramnik, the program ran on a computer system containing a
dual-core Intel Xeon 5160 CPU, capable of evaluating only 8 million
positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18
plies in the middlegame thanks to heuristics; it won 4–2.[31][32]
(source)
edited Feb 4 at 19:16
Riker
1033
answered Feb 3 at 22:18
SmallChessSmallChess
15.2k22250
edited Feb 4 at 19:16
Riker
1033
edited Feb 4 at 19:16
Riker
1033
edited Feb 4 at 19:16
Riker
1033
1033
answered Feb 3 at 22:18
SmallChessSmallChess
15.2k22250
answered Feb 3 at 22:18
SmallChessSmallChess
15.2k22250
answered Feb 3 at 22:18
SmallChessSmallChess
15.2k22250
15.2k22250
4
The comparison between a 1997 supercomputer and a 2006 standard machine isn't necessarily trivial.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:20
3
@InertialIgnorance I don't know but I am sure you couldn't afford IBM Deep Blue.
– SmallChess
Feb 3 at 23:23
2
True, but I'm talking about the comparison between computational speeds. A mobile phone today is much faster than a supercomputer in the 50's, even though the latter costed way more at the time.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:25
5
@InertialIgnorance A mobile phone today would have made the supercomputer TOP 500 list in the mid 1990s, nevermind the 1950s!
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:05
2
For reference, Deep Blue was evaluating 100 million (first version) to 200 million (updated) positions per second, but to a depth of only 6-8moves on average (to a max of 20 in some cases). Deep Fritz had better heuristics, allowing it deeper searches with fewer evaluations.
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:13
|
show 11 more comments
4
The comparison between a 1997 supercomputer and a 2006 standard machine isn't necessarily trivial.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:20
3
@InertialIgnorance I don't know but I am sure you couldn't afford IBM Deep Blue.
– SmallChess
Feb 3 at 23:23
2
True, but I'm talking about the comparison between computational speeds. A mobile phone today is much faster than a supercomputer in the 50's, even though the latter costed way more at the time.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:25
5
@InertialIgnorance A mobile phone today would have made the supercomputer TOP 500 list in the mid 1990s, nevermind the 1950s!
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:05
2
For reference, Deep Blue was evaluating 100 million (first version) to 200 million (updated) positions per second, but to a depth of only 6-8moves on average (to a max of 20 in some cases). Deep Fritz had better heuristics, allowing it deeper searches with fewer evaluations.
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:13
4
4
The comparison between a 1997 supercomputer and a 2006 standard machine isn't necessarily trivial.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:20
The comparison between a 1997 supercomputer and a 2006 standard machine isn't necessarily trivial.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:20
3
3
@InertialIgnorance I don't know but I am sure you couldn't afford IBM Deep Blue.
– SmallChess
Feb 3 at 23:23
@InertialIgnorance I don't know but I am sure you couldn't afford IBM Deep Blue.
– SmallChess
Feb 3 at 23:23
2
2
True, but I'm talking about the comparison between computational speeds. A mobile phone today is much faster than a supercomputer in the 50's, even though the latter costed way more at the time.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:25
True, but I'm talking about the comparison between computational speeds. A mobile phone today is much faster than a supercomputer in the 50's, even though the latter costed way more at the time.
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 23:25
5
5
@InertialIgnorance A mobile phone today would have made the supercomputer TOP 500 list in the mid 1990s, nevermind the 1950s!
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:05
@InertialIgnorance A mobile phone today would have made the supercomputer TOP 500 list in the mid 1990s, nevermind the 1950s!
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:05
2
2
For reference, Deep Blue was evaluating 100 million (first version) to 200 million (updated) positions per second, but to a depth of only 6-8moves on average (to a max of 20 in some cases). Deep Fritz had better heuristics, allowing it deeper searches with fewer evaluations.
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:13
For reference, Deep Blue was evaluating 100 million (first version) to 200 million (updated) positions per second, but to a depth of only 6-8moves on average (to a max of 20 in some cases). Deep Fritz had better heuristics, allowing it deeper searches with fewer evaluations.
– J...
Feb 4 at 13:13
|
show 11 more comments
A standard desktop today is significantly more powerful than whatever machine Deep Blue was running on in the mid-1990s against Kasparov. Since Deep Blue was the first engine to beat a world champion, that's the answer to your question.
Note that there may have been an engine before Deep Blue that, if it ran on a modern day desktop, could have beat Kasparov. But we never saw such a match happen so it's just speculation to say any earlier engine than Deep Blue.
answered Feb 3 at 19:57
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
5,153413
5
Thanks for this. It seems according to the wiki that Deep Blue was running at 11.38 GFLOPS which is roughly the speed of a cheap PC these days. However it's not 100% clear Deep Blue was better than Kasparov. The match was controversial.
– Anush
Feb 3 at 20:01
8
Note peak FLOPS and achieved FLOPS are very different things. And I'm not sure that FLOPS is actually a reasonable measure of performance in this case - Ian the HPC guy
– Ian Bush
Feb 3 at 20:30
1
Yes, the match was controversial. If you don't accept that Deep Blue was superior though, you could select the next engine that beat a world champion in a match (there's a list in the wikipedia page on "Computer Chess").
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 21:35
8
Deep Blue used significant amounts of custom hardware. It is not the answer to the question because it cannot "run on a standard desktop."
– David Richerby
Feb 4 at 14:41
3
Due to the specific hardware used by Deep Blue I am not certain that the assumption about powerful holds. A 10 year old GPU can probably still outperform a modern CPU when rendering graphics.
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Feb 4 at 16:08
|
show 3 more comments
A standard desktop today is significantly more powerful than whatever machine Deep Blue was running on in the mid-1990s against Kasparov. Since Deep Blue was the first engine to beat a world champion, that's the answer to your question.
Note that there may have been an engine before Deep Blue that, if it ran on a modern day desktop, could have beat Kasparov. But we never saw such a match happen so it's just speculation to say any earlier engine than Deep Blue.
answered Feb 3 at 19:57
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
5,153413
5
Thanks for this. It seems according to the wiki that Deep Blue was running at 11.38 GFLOPS which is roughly the speed of a cheap PC these days. However it's not 100% clear Deep Blue was better than Kasparov. The match was controversial.
– Anush
Feb 3 at 20:01
8
Note peak FLOPS and achieved FLOPS are very different things. And I'm not sure that FLOPS is actually a reasonable measure of performance in this case - Ian the HPC guy
– Ian Bush
Feb 3 at 20:30
1
Yes, the match was controversial. If you don't accept that Deep Blue was superior though, you could select the next engine that beat a world champion in a match (there's a list in the wikipedia page on "Computer Chess").
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 21:35
8
Deep Blue used significant amounts of custom hardware. It is not the answer to the question because it cannot "run on a standard desktop."
– David Richerby
Feb 4 at 14:41
3
Due to the specific hardware used by Deep Blue I am not certain that the assumption about powerful holds. A 10 year old GPU can probably still outperform a modern CPU when rendering graphics.
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Feb 4 at 16:08
|
show 3 more comments
A standard desktop today is significantly more powerful than whatever machine Deep Blue was running on in the mid-1990s against Kasparov. Since Deep Blue was the first engine to beat a world champion, that's the answer to your question.
Note that there may have been an engine before Deep Blue that, if it ran on a modern day desktop, could have beat Kasparov. But we never saw such a match happen so it's just speculation to say any earlier engine than Deep Blue.
answered Feb 3 at 19:57
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
5,153413
A standard desktop today is significantly more powerful than whatever machine Deep Blue was running on in the mid-1990s against Kasparov. Since Deep Blue was the first engine to beat a world champion, that's the answer to your question.
Note that there may have been an engine before Deep Blue that, if it ran on a modern day desktop, could have beat Kasparov. But we never saw such a match happen so it's just speculation to say any earlier engine than Deep Blue.
answered Feb 3 at 19:57
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
5,153413
answered Feb 3 at 19:57
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
5,153413
answered Feb 3 at 19:57
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
5,153413
answered Feb 3 at 19:57
Inertial IgnoranceInertial Ignorance
5,153413
5,153413
5
Thanks for this. It seems according to the wiki that Deep Blue was running at 11.38 GFLOPS which is roughly the speed of a cheap PC these days. However it's not 100% clear Deep Blue was better than Kasparov. The match was controversial.
– Anush
Feb 3 at 20:01
8
Note peak FLOPS and achieved FLOPS are very different things. And I'm not sure that FLOPS is actually a reasonable measure of performance in this case - Ian the HPC guy
– Ian Bush
Feb 3 at 20:30
1
Yes, the match was controversial. If you don't accept that Deep Blue was superior though, you could select the next engine that beat a world champion in a match (there's a list in the wikipedia page on "Computer Chess").
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 21:35
8
Deep Blue used significant amounts of custom hardware. It is not the answer to the question because it cannot "run on a standard desktop."
– David Richerby
Feb 4 at 14:41
3
Due to the specific hardware used by Deep Blue I am not certain that the assumption about powerful holds. A 10 year old GPU can probably still outperform a modern CPU when rendering graphics.
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Feb 4 at 16:08
|
show 3 more comments
5
Thanks for this. It seems according to the wiki that Deep Blue was running at 11.38 GFLOPS which is roughly the speed of a cheap PC these days. However it's not 100% clear Deep Blue was better than Kasparov. The match was controversial.
– Anush
Feb 3 at 20:01
8
Note peak FLOPS and achieved FLOPS are very different things. And I'm not sure that FLOPS is actually a reasonable measure of performance in this case - Ian the HPC guy
– Ian Bush
Feb 3 at 20:30
1
Yes, the match was controversial. If you don't accept that Deep Blue was superior though, you could select the next engine that beat a world champion in a match (there's a list in the wikipedia page on "Computer Chess").
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 21:35
8
Deep Blue used significant amounts of custom hardware. It is not the answer to the question because it cannot "run on a standard desktop."
– David Richerby
Feb 4 at 14:41
3
Due to the specific hardware used by Deep Blue I am not certain that the assumption about powerful holds. A 10 year old GPU can probably still outperform a modern CPU when rendering graphics.
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Feb 4 at 16:08
5
5
Thanks for this. It seems according to the wiki that Deep Blue was running at 11.38 GFLOPS which is roughly the speed of a cheap PC these days. However it's not 100% clear Deep Blue was better than Kasparov. The match was controversial.
– Anush
Feb 3 at 20:01
Thanks for this. It seems according to the wiki that Deep Blue was running at 11.38 GFLOPS which is roughly the speed of a cheap PC these days. However it's not 100% clear Deep Blue was better than Kasparov. The match was controversial.
– Anush
Feb 3 at 20:01
8
8
Note peak FLOPS and achieved FLOPS are very different things. And I'm not sure that FLOPS is actually a reasonable measure of performance in this case - Ian the HPC guy
– Ian Bush
Feb 3 at 20:30
Note peak FLOPS and achieved FLOPS are very different things. And I'm not sure that FLOPS is actually a reasonable measure of performance in this case - Ian the HPC guy
– Ian Bush
Feb 3 at 20:30
1
1
Yes, the match was controversial. If you don't accept that Deep Blue was superior though, you could select the next engine that beat a world champion in a match (there's a list in the wikipedia page on "Computer Chess").
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 21:35
Yes, the match was controversial. If you don't accept that Deep Blue was superior though, you could select the next engine that beat a world champion in a match (there's a list in the wikipedia page on "Computer Chess").
– Inertial Ignorance
Feb 3 at 21:35
8
8
Deep Blue used significant amounts of custom hardware. It is not the answer to the question because it cannot "run on a standard desktop."
– David Richerby
Feb 4 at 14:41
Deep Blue used significant amounts of custom hardware. It is not the answer to the question because it cannot "run on a standard desktop."
– David Richerby
Feb 4 at 14:41
3
3
Due to the specific hardware used by Deep Blue I am not certain that the assumption about powerful holds. A 10 year old GPU can probably still outperform a modern CPU when rendering graphics.
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Feb 4 at 16:08
Due to the specific hardware used by Deep Blue I am not certain that the assumption about powerful holds. A 10 year old GPU can probably still outperform a modern CPU when rendering graphics.
– Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen
Feb 4 at 16:08
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23660%2fwhat-was-the-first-chess-engine-that-could-beat-the-world-champion-on-a-standard%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
