Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 22:21:14 05/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2000 at 09:21:49, Dan Ellwein wrote: >On May 03, 2000 at 06:56:36, Paulo Soares wrote: > >>On May 02, 2000 at 13:31:17, Dan Ellwein wrote: >> >>>On May 02, 2000 at 13:10:18, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote: >>> >>>>http://www.forbes.com/asap/99/0222/071.htm JAFM >>> >>>thanks for the article JAFM... >>> >>>Game 2 of the Kasparov-Deep Blue rematch should be called... >>> >>>"The Game of the Century" >>> >>>it was definitely a 'watershed' in the history of man-machine encounters... >>> >>>regards - pilgrimdan >> >>I am not sure, but seemed that in game 2 of the rematch Kasparov lost when he >>had the draw assured by perpetual check. If this is true, I don't agree that >>this is the " game of the century ", because Kasparov don't make these >>type of mistakes. >> >>Paulo Soares, from Brazil > >Kasparov did have the draw 'assured' but he did not see the draw till it was >pointed out to him the next day... > >i agree that Kasparov doesn't normally make these type of mistakes... > >if i'm not mistaken, that was the first time that a reigning world champion >resigned in a drawn position... > >this game has significance if for no other reason than that... Kasparov spoke in the day after the game that when resigned he was tired, and he assumed that Deep Blue allowed that Qe3 were played because that move was losing (thanks by the links JAFM!). How to analyze that fact? Could to play against a machine justify the mistake? If that is true I believe that this should be one of the most important games played in the century, because it would show the negative psychological factors that the human beings would feel when playing against machines. Only a thought that pursues me there are some years. Paulo
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.