Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:17:57 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2000 at 18:56:25, Paul Massie wrote: >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. and that was all nonsense. First Hsu pointed out that the program was _not_ changed between rounds 1 and 2. Kasparov was certain it had been based on how it handled bishops differentlyh in each game. And what was Kasparov doing on his "rest day"? He was huddled with his team members plotting what kind of trick to try next. And yet it is not allowable to tweak DB itself? Does it sound like he wants _everything_ for himself, and leaves _nothing_ for the DB group? > >I consider it absurd that DB should be forced to remain static while he can >change, but that's just my opinion. > >Paul I agree with you. It was simply whining. And sounds about as factual as the recent statements by the Kasparov camp after Hsu's public letter became a topic for discussion.
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.