Author: Don Dailey
Date: 13:27:43 05/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 1998 at 00:46:52, Havergal Brian wrote: >No one knows whether DB was superior or not. >Sure, I've seen and analyzed the games in detail. >Kasparov """""seemed""""" to have the advantage in several...but didn't. >Sort of like Denver beating Green Bay...who knew??? But it happened. >We will probably never know who was """"really"""" superior. Kasparov >and IBM made sure of that. >I for one wouldn't bet against the machine...Kasparov cracked after just >6 games against it. 24 would put him in the nuthouse. Based on the tiny sample of 6 games, Deep Blue is better. Although I don't really believe this, I don't want to lightly dismiss the possibility. In my opinion this was classic human vs computer stuff. The stengths and weakness of computers and humans all showed up. There is a phenomenon in computer chess where computers are percieved as being weaker (by good players) than they actually perform. This happens because we don't weight the differences fairly. The human errors are flukes so we ignore them. Kasparov's error in the last round was "uncharacteristic" and is not a reflection of his "true" strength. But a bad positional move by a computer get's severely criticized as an example of why computers will never be as good as humans. Kasparov seems like the far superior player, but I'm arguing that if they are indeed equal (which I still don't believe) it is natural for this perception to exist. We will see more strategy, brilliance and purpose in his moves than in the computers moves. This alone will make it seem that he must be the better player. The wonderful characteristic of never overlooking moves and avoiding blunders will never impress us as much as finding a beautiful plan, or "winning in grand style." I remember getting together once with some friends and playing speed chess with one of the Mephisto lang board and also with the Super Expert program. Everyone present was completely surprised when I told them the Lang program was far stronger. They couldn't believe this until we played a few games between them. The Lang program won every game we played. But I could see their point. The super-expert really did feel like the better program and seemed to understand chess better. But this illustrated to me convincingly that we are poor judges of this kind of thing. Humans are EXTREMELY influenced by irrelevant factors. You can see how well this fact is appreciated by advertisers by just turning on your television set and watching a few commercials. - Don
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.