Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:46:03 03/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 1999 at 03:08:47, odell hall wrote: >Hi CCC > > I continue to hear people try and make the victory of deepblue over >Garry Kasp, amount to nothing???? It was not nothing. It has historical interest as the first time a computer beat a world chess champion in match play. It was also a match where the victor won by 1 game. The victor also had an edge in that it was able to analyze hundreds of games by the loser ahead of time and the loser could only analyze 6 games of the winner (and 3 of those games were loses). The point is not that the match was worthless. The point is that although it has historical interest, it doesn't mean that much (except to a bunch of computer chess nerds and IBM). > Firstly regardless of the Amount of games >played, When was the last time that anyone beat Garry Kaspy in a match period??? Karpov did it in 1984. When was the last time that a world chess champion played a match in which his opponent could analyze hundreds of his games, but he could only analyze 6 of his opponents games? 1997, I believe. Trivia question for you. When was the last time Kasparov won a major tournament (category 15+, not match) before Hoogovens 1999? > We all know the answer to this question, It is totally, ludicrous to suggest >that this match meant nothing! I continue to hear pathetic excuses , such as >garry kasparov was not in form! Yet I remember many said the same bull about >him before he defeated Annand. What people are ignoring is that garry kasparov >is such a great player that he can defeat the best even in bad form!!! >I believe these attempts to minimize the victory of deepblue is a pure emotional >reaction, and has little to do which logic or reality. The fact is, deepblue >defeated kaspy in front of the entire world. This is why the amount of games >played is really irrelevant. Kaspy knew that his reputation was on the line. So >it doesn't matter if it was one game or one hundred! If he was the better >player he would have been victorious. This is total bull. If Deep Blue was the better player, it wouldn't have lost the first game (I do not believe this, it's just sarcasm to illustrate how inane the "Kasparov would have been victorious" statement is). People are not machines and even champions falter. They are not any less a champion because they didn't perform up to snuff in one competition. Bronstein lost to Botvinnik for the world chess championship in 1951. He was leading by one game going into the last game and the night before the game, he mentioned to his girlfriend that it looked like he would become chess champion on the next day (he only needed a draw). His girlfriend's response was "So what?". This totally psyched him out and Botvinnik won due to it being a tied match. Does this make Bronstein any less of a champion because he faltered when something important was on the line? Not in my mind. Deep Blue2 / Kasparov was a historic match. Nothing more. Nothing less. The computer got up to world class chess level (but then again, so did Bronstein). > What makes a world champion , the best in >any sport is his ability to rise to the challenge when something important is on >the line, historically kaspy has been able to come though under pressure. In my >view, this fact is what makes deepblue's victory more credible If everyone >thinks, and recollects about the pre-match news conferences, kaspy was quite >arrogant, he was sure that he would win the match. Only Grandmaster Joel >benjamin knew that the deepblue kaspy would face was much, much stronger than >kaspy realized. Apparently kaspy did not realize the leap and technical progress >made by the programmers of deepblue. And when he sat down to play it , I think >he was trumatized, realizing just how strong it was. So what you are saying is that he psyched himself out and that Deep Blue won on a fluke (just like Botvinnik), not because it was better. KarinsDad :) :)
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.