Author: Rajen Gupta
Date: 14:27:47 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2000 at 15:36:13, Paul Massie wrote: >One of Kasparov's greatest strengths is his ability to study opponents and >prepare things especially for them. He is actually more versatile than most of >his opponents, so he is better able to prepare surprises for them. Also, he >tends to have more research ability (either personally or through his backup >team), so again he is very successful at preparing for opponents. Since he >wasn't able to see any DB games prior to the match, he wasn't able to utilize >that strength. > >He obviously thought when going into the match that he could still win without >that advantage, but after he lost he was bitterly regretting not having insisted >on a way to prepare specifically for DB. > >Interestingly enough, it seems quite debatable as to whether that should be >considered a reasonable condition for him, or whether it actually constitutes an >unfair advantage to him to be able to prepare at that length. It is clear that, >given a number of games to study, he would have been able to do much better >against DB - providing DB didn't change it's playing style. But why should it >be fair for DB to be forced to remain constant, while Gary is able to adapt to >its style? when one evaluates chessmaster 6000, one can evaluate it with any number of different types of personalities-similarly kasparov should have been allowed to evaluate deep blue with all its potential personalities for a perid of a few weeks-a pretty fair bargain as deep blue was able to evaluate every single game GK rajen gupta
This page took 0.01 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.