Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:47:36 04/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 2005 at 14:57:37, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >Forget the "experts" - take a look with your own eyes: > >[D] 3rr1k1/1p6/1qp4p/4nPP1/pP2p3/P3N1P1/1BP1b1B1/R1Q4K w - - > >Shredder 9 says: > > 13/15 0:01 -0.45 2.gxh6 Nf7 3.c4 Qc7 4.Qe1 Bf3 5.Bxf3 exf3 6.Qc3 Qe5 >(471.474) 355 > 14/39 0:22 -0.65 2.gxh6 Qc7 3.Nf1 Nf3 (8.245.411) 361 > >Does this look to you like a position where black just gone done playing 8 or so >"?" moves while white was in the meantime playing 4 or 5 "!" moves? > >I didn't think so. > >Yet, for some reason this is the widely circulated script about game 1 from >Kasparov-Deep Blue, '97. > >Vas > To me the position and its continuation by the computer is typical for human superority in chess. The machine believed in its material advantage and is unable to see its disadvantage through W two passed pawns, because OF COURSE Kasparov didn't play gxh6, a move SHREDDER still expects as it seems. This is a position where DBII had no clue. Not about the evaluation of the position, not about the importance of pieces (like the Q for Black's game) and not for the danger against B's K through the two passed pawns of W. - Not that I would pretend for a second that I could find moves like Kg1 some moves later. Or that I would know about the ressources of W against this dangerously looking B+R attack of Black. But Kasparov saw all this and DBII saw nothing. That is why my theory is standing that this game 1 in 1997 shows Kasparov's superority without any thinkable doubt. - Game 2 spoiled it all for Kasparov. Not because of the machine's chess... As I said to Bob, the scientists should have taken care of Kasparov's doubts and questions. Because this was a mutual attempt to research the machine's chess. It wasn't a fight for any championship at all! I go even further. Kasparov tried his best to analyse the machine's capacities and when he came to serious doubts in game 2 after the experiences in game 1, the team of his partners suddenly treated him like an unwanted guest who allegedly spoiled a party. This is still a scandal in the history of computerchess.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.