They observed that Toyota allows its operators to design their own tools, workspaces, and processes, rather than going by the book. The “jazz mindset” as Harvard Business School researchers Ethan Bernstein and Frank Barret refer to the concept, is as difficult to learn as it is to know when and where to apply it. Similarly, today’s business leaders who are more comfortable with being uncomfortable are poised to out-compete others in their industry beholden to strict strategy scripts or increasing mountains of metrics. The ability of today’s grandmasters to play the perfect, optimal game can become their Achilles heel against an opponent more adept at improvisation. Akin to Captain Kirk and Picard “out-humaning” computers and their logic-bound sidekicks in so many Star Trek episodes, Carlsen took the game into territories foreign, uncomfortable and involute, finally unraveling his opponent. Perhaps it would be more appropriate today to refer to him as the “Miles Davis of Chess,” due to how he can deviate from the established musical score and improvise over it.Ĭhess aficionados contend that the more daedal Carlsen won some of these games by deviating from the ideal sequence that a heavily computer-trained player like Nepomniachtchi likely anticipated and prepared for. Since his days as a gangly teenager, Carlsen has been dubbed the “Mozart of Chess” based on his ability to weave harmony into his melodic play. Consider how many years Amazon investors allowed the company to operate at a loss-all the while amassing data nobody else had that ultimately enabled it to dominate the retail market. The executives of well-funded, pre-IPO startups not obliged to quarterly performance scrutiny have executed this strategy repeatedly over the past several decades. I guess that was cheating, but we needed all the help we could get and, like I said, we never got past level 5 anyway.As with chess and many sports, outlasting your competition is an increasingly viable business strategy, particularly in a world where near-infinite information and computer power level the playing field. Also, we could undo our moves when we saw that we had made a mistake. I think we worked our way up to level five or so, and it was both of us against the computer. One was the easiest level and then 10 would have been the most difficult. This was back before there was a personal computer in everyone's home, so this was a big deal to us.
We would play his home computer, which had a chess playing program on it.
In high school, my friend and I had our own version of Deep Blue. Computers are much better chess players today than Deep Blue was when it played. With chess, programmers can load so much information into a computer program that it is virtual impossible for the computer to lose no matter who the person it is playing against. I know humans like to think they cannot be replaced by computers, but for many jobs we can. Some knowledgeable chess critics pointed out that Kasparov's strategy in the 1997 match was extremely conservative and very out of character for him, suggesting that he might have won if he had played with his usual aggressive, dynamic style. He demanded a rematch, which IBM refused, and the issue became a topic of some controversy in the chess and computing communities. Kasparov later decried the match against Deep Blue, arguing that the computer displayed such depth of intelligence that humans must have intervened during the games to help Deep Blue win. Deep Blue won the match, taking two games outright to Kasparov's one and gaining another point and a half from three draws, for a total of three and a half to two and a half.
The 1997 match featured a substantially updated Deep Blue, however, and the computer integrated adaptations from its experiences in the previous match against Kasparov. Deep Blue's first match against Kasparov took place in 1996, and Kasparov won the match.
0 kommentar(er)
