Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 13:26:32 07/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2001 at 08:35:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 10, 2001 at 04:21:13, odell hall wrote: > >> >> >> I was extremely impressed with Garry Kasparov and his match with Deepblue. I do >>not believe Deepblue, with all it's billions of calculations was able to >>tactically outplay him the entire match. But I wonder, if the computer's strong >>point is only tactics, and if many here are right, that the only way computers >>win is by some tactical mistake by humans, then why did Kaspy lose the match >>against Deepblue? Please don't cite the Six game, Dr. Hyatt has illustrated on >>many occasions that Several international masters were still able to win the >>game against the Strongest Programs after the allleged blunder ....h6. So then >>why did Kaspy lose the match? He stated in one particular interview that >>"Quantity became quality" therefore simple Calculation can overcome any lack of >>positional understanding the computer may have. Can we talk about this? >> I guess the main object of this post is to praise humans for still having the >>ability to compete with computer on a tactical level, but i think only the best >>humans have this ability. > > >I believe it surprised him in a few places. I didn't see (nor hear of) any >resounding tactical shots which says a lot about Kasparov's calculation >ability. In at least one game everyone thought DB was lost, but it had >calculated very deeply and drew pretty simply. Modify that last statement in: In at least one game DB was lost but Kasparov played like a kid and even managed to give away a few pawns here and there and still look dangerous. No kasparov didn't play tactical very well. Why the hell give away pawns for nothing against computer?
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.