Author: odell hall
Date: 10:12:20 03/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 1999 at 12:40:05, Don Dailey wrote: >On March 03, 1999 at 09:59:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 03, 1999 at 04:36:43, Lin Harper wrote: >> >>>Kaspy should never have agreed to such a short match. He would surely have >>>caught up and passed the computer if he had time. >> >>I think Kasparov might be one of the best two or three players of all time. >>But in _that_ match with deep blue, I personally believe that if the match >>had gone two more games, it would have been two more won games for DB. Kasparov >>"lost it" somewhere in the first 3-4 games and never recovered. And I don't >>believe he would have recovered unless there had been a month break in the >>match which would not have happened. >> >>The last two games of the match had him looking 'beaten' before he ever made >>the first move. I think it would be very difficult for him to 'come back' >>with additional games, given the way he appeared to feel... > >This is pretty speculative but it's certainly not implausible. I >personally thought Kasparov was tougher than that but now I'm not >sure. Up until the last game I really feel as if he had outplayed >Deep Blue for the most part, but let the fact that he couldn't quite >"close" psyche him out and lose confidence. > >Having said that, I believe that credit should be given where credit >is due. Kasparov's own psychology is one of the variables here and >is built into his rating and his performance. So for me to say >Kasparov "should" have won this match is not really an accurate >statement, because he didn't. The fact that Deep Blue DID hold >on proves it was able to take advantage of a weakness in Kasparov, >also a variable in the equation. Whoever faces the computers of >tomorrow will have to deal with this too if they want to claim >superiority. > >I'm not sure it would have mattered given Kasparov's phychology, >but at the time I thought is was very foolish of Kasparov to >play such a short match. Perhaps he knows nothing about math >or was more interested in the money, but if it were me and I >was in a position to make lot's of demands before I would accept >a match, I would have insisted on a reasonable number of games, >unless of course I percieved myself as being the weaker player. > >I'm tired of speculating however. The truth of the matter is >that Deep Blue won. The only scientifically valid conclusion >you can draw from this is that it is slightly more likely that >Deep Blue is the better match player. Anything more than this >is a very fallible judgement call and speculation. > >I have also been speculating a lot about how good Deep Blue is >compared to todays Micro's by comparing Deep Thought's results >at the last ICCA tournament. This is a horrible comparison >however because of at least 3 reasons: > > 1. Only 5 games were played by each, that means almost nothing. > > 2. Todays micro's are completely different programs. > > 3. Deep Blue is a completely different program than the Hong Kong > program they called "Deep Blue prototype" which was actually > not Deep Blue at all. More different than even the micro's. > >Speculation is a lot of fun but there is frustratingly little data >to do a good job of it. I also believe it is also a good thing to >accept the results we get. We can alway speculate till we are blue >in the face but a small amount of "real" information and results in >a controlled and well documented setting means more to me than >all the anecdotes and second hand stories (and opinions) in the >world. > > >- Don Very Well Said Don!
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.