Author: Paul Massie
Date: 15:56:25 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2000 at 18:29:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 13, 2000 at 17:27:47, Rajen Gupta wrote: > >>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 > > >There are a nearly infinite number of 'personalities'. This idea is impossible >to implement. > >And then there is the problem with Kasparov's "personalities" as well. He >played in this match unlike the way he played in any other event in his life. >Was that fair, assuming the DB guys had studied what he had done in the past? > >This is a nonsensical argument from kasparov, and shows how little he knows >about the insides of a chess program. Small changes completely modify the >way it plays... I believe the unspoken assumption from Kasparov, given that he had games to study, was that DB would not be significantly changed after those games. I remember he had a number of comments about his feelings that the program had been changed during the match, and he wasn't happy about the idea. I consider it absurd that DB should be forced to remain static while he can change, but that's just my opinion. Paul
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.