IBM’s ‘Watson’ to take on Jeopardy! champs

By Agence France-Presse
Friday, February 11, 2011 9:56 EDT
google plus icon
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

WASHINGTON – Nearly 15 years after an IBM machine defeated world chess champion Garry Kasparov, the US computer pioneer is rolling out another device to challenge mankind.

Watson, a supercomputer named for IBM founder Thomas Watson, is to take on two human champions of the long-running Jeopardy! television quiz show in two games over three days next week.

Like Kasparov, who lost a six-game match to IBM’s “Deep Blue” in 1997, Ken Jennings, who holds the Jeopardy! record of 74 straight wins, and Brad Rutter, winner of $3.25 million on the show, are expected to have their hands full.

In a practice match at IBM Research headquarters in upstate New York last month, Watson came out on top in terms of prize money, although the computer and the two human contestants correctly answered all of the 15 questions.

Jeopardy!, which first aired on US television in 1964, tests a player’s knowledge of trivia in a range of categories, from geography to politics to history to sports and entertainment.

In a twist on traditional game play, contestants are provided with answers and need to supply the questions.

During the practice match, for example, one of the clues was: “The film Gigi gave him his signature song ‘Thank Heaven for Little Girls.’”

Watson, represented by a large computer monitor, sounded the buzzer a split second ahead of Jennings and Rutter and answered correctly in its artificial voice “Who is Maurice Chevalier?”

A dollar amount is attached to each question and the player with the most money at the end of the game is the winner. Players have money deducted for wrong answers.

Watson, which is not connected to the Internet, plays the game by crunching through multiple algorithms at dizzying speed and attaching a percentage score to what it believes is the correct response.

For the Maurice Chevalier question, for example, Watson was 98 percent certain that the name of the French crooner was the right answer.

Developing a supercomputer that can compete with the best human Jeopardy! players involves challenges more complex than those faced by the scientists behind the chess-playing “Deep Blue.”

“The thing about chess is that it’s fairly straightforward to represent the game in a computer,” said Eric Brown, a member of the IBM Research team that has been working on Watson since 2006.

“With chess, it’s almost mathematical,” Brown told AFP. “You can consider all the possibilities. It’s almost a closed set of options.”

Jeopardy!, on the other hand, involves the use of natural language, raising a whole host of problems for a computer.

“Questions are expressed in language and with an ability to be asked in an infinite numbers of ways,” Brown said, including the use of irony, ambiguity, riddles and puns — not a computer’s strong suit.

“The initial approach that people might want to take is to just build a giant database,” Brown said. “That approach is just not suitable.”

Playing Jeopardy! is also not like searching the Web.

“While they’re somewhat related, Google and Watson are solving two different problems,” Brown said.

“With Web search, you express your information with a few keywords and then a search engine will bring back 10 or half-a-million Web pages that match what you’re looking for.

“But if you’re looking for precise information (like with Jeopardy!) you’ll have the task of wading through those documents to find the answer that you’re looking for,” he said.

Watson uses what IBM calls Question Answering technology to tackle Jeopardy! clues, gathering evidence, analysing it and then scoring and ranking the most likely answer.

The winner of the man vs. machine showdown which begins on Monday is to receive $1 million. Second place is worth $300,000 and the third place finisher pockets $200,000.

IBM plans to donate 100 percent of its winnings to charity. Jennings and Rutter plan to give 50 percent of their prize money to charity.

Agence France-Presse
Agence France-Presse
AFP journalists cover wars, conflicts, politics, science, health, the environment, technology, fashion, entertainment, the offbeat, sports and a whole lot more in text, photographs, video, graphics and online.
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
  • Anonymous

    (QUESTION) Who is China?

    This Computer Trumps US One as World’s Fastest


  • CozmicSeer

    One of the questions that may throw the computer will be “Which came first? The ’1′ or the ’0′.

  • Guest

    NEWS FLASH! A new-fangled device called the automobile is FASTER than the speediest human runner!

    As was mentioned, they did the same thing with chess a while back? People still enjoy playing chess. Someone wins and someone else loses. It’s a GAME.

  • Anonymous

    I loved The Ken Show when it was on before…

  • Anonymous

    Nice. Question: 5/0 =

  • Anonymous

    Chess is just a game? You do not know crazy.

  • Guest

    You have just introduced me to Crazy Chess. It is in the same category as crack cocaine and methamphetamine. I will avoid it to maintain some semblance of a balanced life.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    When cars first came out, people were faster. Horses were faster for a time after that. Look how “fast, reliable” cars have changed the world since then.. now think about a future (in terms of 15 to 20 years) where computers are doing “thinking” that people do now.. “Want fries with that?”.. and even by today’s standards, I’ve seen some computers that would be better at taking fast food orders than some of the staff these places have.

    You tie these thinking computers in with robotics, and you have no need for fast food staff at all.. inventories monitored and new stock ordered without people, food cooked without people, orders taken by voice recognition and delivered by a robot..

    http://www.thevenusproject.com is only about 15 – 20 years away from being technically viable. We only have to nudnge the human will a bit and we’d be set.