Author: Doody Ungson
Date: 19:15:27 04/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
First of.. I do agree with Rob. Deep Blue's development which spanned about 6 to 8 years was a awesome project in the sense that it was funded with enough megabucks by IBM to prove that if cost was no object, a corporation can assemble the best team (scientists, programmers and grandmasters) fund them adequately and design the machine with the latest most advanced hardware and beat the best chess player in the world at his own game. 2- IBM did hint even before the 1st match in Philadelphia that ultimately, it was going to use the "intelligent" algorithms to develop similar machines to solve real world problems. This was widely advertised and even openly expressed by the Deep Blue Team. In other words, there was definitely a commercial bottom line motive for this Herculean effort. 3. Thirdly, I read just after the match that the Deep Blue Machine was actually sold to an anonymous buyer. I surmise that - this buyer did not use the machine to play and promote chess but probably was modified for commercial value purposes. 4. Rob is most likely right. IBM's sole purpose was to beat Gary Kasparov in an even match - neither side having an advantage vs. the other. - in standard tournament time controls. Since Deep Blue already won the match. There is nothing else to prove. What this whole experiment proved was that with enough megabucks, one can develop a commercially viable machine to solve real world problems as complex as chess problems. So IBM is moving forward in its development. I doubt whether IBM will invest more money in this technology just to play and develop chess. 5. On Deep Blue's rating- I wish most of you would read the latest books on Deep Blue vs. Kasparov (i.e. one is written by a chess instructor Bruce Pandolfini). Gary Kasparov was definitely playing his hardest to WIN. As the previous TIME MAGAZINE article wrote about the match. He was playing to prove that MAN was still superior. The machine especially on all the drawn games found the proper combinations and moves to MATCH Gary's best skills. Even the best Grandmasters following and analyzing the game were not accurate in their analysis because Deep Blue at times was playing equal or beyond Gary's rating - definitely above anyone else. Gary tried his hardest to win- throwing his best shots and Deep Blue with its enormous crunching power and of course a good chess program matched his chess skills move by move. Deep Blue was definitely playing at Gary's peak strength. The reason Gary lost was because of exhaustion. Period. That is the only explanation. Since Deep Blue never gets tired, it definitely has an edge over the world's TOP grandmasters- ANAND, KARPOV. Whoever plays it- 6 games or more. 6. On micros i.e. Pentium II 400 Mhz. ..It will be interesting. I think Deep Blue has still an edge 100 to 150 points. In the 6 game match, Deep Blue unlike the best commercial programs running with the best hardware, found ways to neutralize Gary's attempts to control the center position. It was definitely playing TOP GRANDMASTER STRENGHT. Most, if not all the best chess PC programs would have succumbed to Gary's very aggressive style during this match.
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.