Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:37:43 03/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 1999 at 17:51:31, Don Dailey wrote: >On March 03, 1999 at 16:43:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 03, 1999 at 11:07:24, Charles Unruh 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 really surprises me from you but anyway, It's quite a difficult thing to >>>say that kasparov would lose some games because of emotion after he went down, >>>because he would have been in a different frame of mind if he thought he had >>>more than a mere 6 games. Further when a player has the "stuff" that it takes >>>to be a world champion they have what is commonly known as the "Rocky Balboa >>>Music!", after that 6th round loss when kasp would have walked in everone in the >>>room would have been hearing that "duh duhnn, duh duh duhnn Adrian!!" >>>> >>>> >> >> >>But think about this: before the match he was _certain_ he was going to win. >>After 5 games, he still was dead even. So why would he look so "down" before >>games 6 when he still was 'in the match'? Unless the previous 5 games had >>taken their mental toll on him. No way to know what happened. But something >>obviously did. All you had to do was watch him walk onto the stage each day, >>and you could see a subtle difference each time. The last time was the most >>striking, to me, of course. > >Honestly what I think happened was that his opponent did not just roll >over and die when it had the worst of it. Kasparov must be used to >getting a big edge and then winning. When this didn't happen I think >he got demoralized and just felt like nothing he could do was quite >good enough. This of course is all speculation but if it's true, >it's the key to his success then "next time" he plays a really strong >computer, if there is a next time. > >Unless he was just exhausted, his attitude should have been, "We are even >after 5 games, but most of the time I've had the machine on the ropes!" >In his mind he should have seen himself as the one controlling the match >but he chose to view it negatively. > > >- Don I wouldn't be surprised to find out that psychology was a big part of this. IE I have talked to players in the past that _hate_ computers because they don't pay attention to grimaces, scowls, slamming pieces down, and other forms of intimidation. If you get used to your opponent 'cracking' over the years, and then you play a computer, you discover that not only do you have to win the game, but you have to win the _won_ game, which often proves to be yet another mental challenge. IE how many times have you seen a computer get down 1=2 pawns and then 'dig in' and fight back to draw or win? I see it _regularly_. And I _know_, from talking to the humans that play it, that it is _very_ difficult to play a computer... Sort of like pushing a car up a hill. A _long_ hill. On a _very hot_ day. Let go for a second and it runs right over you without thinking. :)
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.