Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:54:29 04/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2005 at 17:20:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 30, 2005 at 15:34:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 29, 2005 at 16:32:16, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2005 at 06:50:46, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>>>On April 29, 2005 at 05:23:51, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 23:17:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 22:01:24, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 20:30:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 15:17:13, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 14:12:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Hsu didn't win. Deep Blue "won". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>1. DBII lost in game one. Very badly. Kasparov's superior chess! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>2. Then Kasparov gave up a drawn game. He was very confused. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>3. Then three draws. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>4. Then Kasparov threw another game. He was no longer in the match since the >>>>>>>>>second game... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So, where DBII WON a single game? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The _official_ history of the match has DB winning rounds 2 and 6, losing round >>>>>>>>1, and drawing the rest. What part of that is confusing? If you want to play >>>>>>>>word games and say that the 1-0 result in round two means black lost rather than >>>>>>>>that white won, fine. In round 1 DB lost, Kasparov didn't win. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Could not the same thing be said about Game 6? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That was my point. That was Rolf's claim in fact. It works both ways. But >>>>>>whether DB won a game, or Kasparov lost the game, the final result is _exactly_ >>>>>>the same... >>>>> >>>>>The final result is not exactly the same in the meaning that if DB won games not >>>>>thanks to stupid errors of kasparov then the impression of the chess players >>>>>could be that DB is better than Kasparov and after the match the impression of >>>>>the chess players was not that DB is better than Kasparov. >>>>> >>>>>Both mistakes of kasparov in the games that he lost are mistakes that kasparov >>>>>does not do against humans and both were result of not understanding the >>>>>machine. >>>>> >>>>>In game 2 Kasparov believed that he has no chance for a perpetual check because >>>>>he believed that DB could see it after getting the impression that DB saw >>>>>another perpetual earlier in the game because it was the only way that kasparov >>>>>could explain DB's move to himself. >>>>>The result was that he even did not analyze this possibility. >>>>> >>>>>In game 6 Kasparov played for a line that he was not ready to play. >>>>> >>>>>DB did not get a losing position in game 1 because of a stupid error so the >>>>>story of game 1 is different. >>>>> >>>>>The impression of the chess players after the match was that DBII was not better >>>>>than Kasparov at 1997 inspite of the results. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>If you want to say that DBII played just 6 games and therefore nothing was >>>>proved - that's fine. That was indeed a horrible waste of resources. >>>> >>>>But this crap about game 1 being a "quality win" while games 2 and 6 were junk - >>>>come on. >>>> >>>>The "cleanest" game was game 2. Yes, there was an extremely difficult perpetual >>>>at the end that was missed by both sides, but aside from that it was a nice >>>>"positional" game. You can just pretend that Kasparov resigned two or three >>>>moves earlier. >>> >>>No >>> >>>There was no reason to resign in game 2 earlier. >>> >>>You resign when you believe that you have no practical chances and the game >>>proves that kasparov had practical chances earlier. >>> >>>I believe that kasparov resigned only because of the fact that the opponent was >>>a computer and he believed that the program cannot miss a perpetual after it did >>>not miss a similiar idea of very deep perpetual earlier(at least this is what he >>>believed because he had no different explanation for earlier moves of DBII) so >>>he even did not check if he has a perpetual and assumed that he has no chances. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>I don't buy that reasoning. It assumes that somehow Kasparov "knew" that the >>computer thought it was winning before and after the move it played. How would >>he know whether or not DB was making a move that led to a forced repetition, as >>its best alternative? He couldn't see the display... > >He could not see the display but he could know that the position of deeper blue >is better based on positional knowledge so he also believed that the machine >knows it. > That is a circular definition. He knows it because he knows it. I've seen many positions in both human and computer chess where one side appears to be better, but the opposite is true, or the position is a draw, even though one side appears to have a significant edge at first glance. >The machine had alternative moves that did not give Kasparov the chance to force >perpetual check and kasparov believed that the machine will choose one of them >in case that he has a perpetual check so he even did not analyze the line that >he sacrifice a piece and assume it is not drawn and analyzed only the line that >he get inferior endgame. Same problem. It didn't play a move that didn't lead to a draw, because it was winning. But what if in reality, those "non-drawing" moves were actually losing moves, or at least DB believed they were losing? I think it is completely foolish to play your game based on what you believe the machine might or might not see. To do otherwise invites this very kind of problem. > >I believe that kasparov never did the mistake of resigning in a drawn position >against humans so the fact that he resigned in a drawn position against deeper >blue needs some explanation. Yes, but a simple "I failed to notice the draw, I thought white had a way out but I had mis-calculated" would have been the better answer. > >Note that even if we get the wrong assumption that deeper blue cannot miss >perpetual check that humans can find then Kasparov could still hope that he may >force the machine to choose between letting him draw by perpetual check and >letting him another draw from inferior endgame by it's evaluation when the >machine does not allow him perpetual check so it is clear that not analyzing the >option of perpetual check was a mistake because even if Deeper blue can escape >from perpetual then the question how it can escape is important. > >Uri
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.