Author: Don Dailey
Date: 06:25:55 05/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 1998 at 08:24:36, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote: >Hi all of you, > >After reading and viewing carefully, I think some extremely interesting >stuff can be found on Chessbase Express 62 from Kasparov's visit in >England. > >He speaks on all kind of matters, covered not only by text (and some >simul games played there), but also by video and audio information. > >I found his comments quite open-minded (more than anything I heard from >him since a while), for example admitting frankly that it probably was a >big mistake he made to quit FIDE at a moment when things might have been >changed from within much better than from outside. It's refreshing to hear people occasionally admit a change of view. >He regrets Fisher was not the right person to open the chess game for a >wide, meanwhile interested public in 1972, but retired instead. Don't we all! >One of them was the kind of pressure coming from the situation that he >very rarely in his career had to play someone completely unknown to him, >while his opponent not only knew every game from him, but also had >access to any available piece of analysis on his games, all this >interpreted by the help of three strong players/grandmasters helping to >develop the oppent's strategy. I think his point is very valid but also keep in mind that Deep Blue didn't have hundreds of tournament games to give him. The team was understandably interested in winning the match and would have to expend a lot of effort to generate these games. In my mind this was perfectly understandable. I really doubt too many Grandmasters would provide this information if they had any way to avoid it, and Deep Blue just didn't have the information. But this one is double sided. By providing Gary with games, this would hurt them a lot more than it would a human player and help Kasparov tremendously. On the other hand, I don't believe having access to Gary's games was nearly the benefit it would be to a human player although it no doubt helped some. When you are really serious about winning a really important match, it's certainly understandable that you will not go out of your way to increase your opponents chances. I attach no issue of morality here either way, I certainly see Kasparov's point too. But I really believe both sides did everthing they could to improve their chances of winning. Probably issues like this should be negotiated before a match is planned. >There are some more interesting arguments and insights, and after >reading them I more then ever ask myself if the whole IBM match ever was >more than an extremely unfair kind of show with the singular aim to >profit in a dirty way from the best chess player of the world - without >much interest for computer science and experiencing. The whole idea WAS to profit, and Gary profited too. It was an agreement between them and I don't think IBM hid their motives. I believe Gary was quite happy to play the match, although he is no doubt disappointed that he lost. >First I thought, no matter what IBM did, maybe the Deep Blue team was ok >and did a great job. I doubt this now. Especially some of Mr. Hsus from >my view quite questionable comments on fairness in the match posted here >by Keith Ian Price (if I remember correctly) have not done much to >strengthen my trust in the critical awareness of the scientific members >of the Deep Blue team: concerning what they did as willing helpers of an >IBM advertising campaign, or in their nearly paranoid attempt to get the >chance to beat Kasparov by any means. Of course they did a great job. >The whole team does not really have my respect any longer looking back >now - and this although in contrast to others I really follow Bob Hyatts >arguments that they did an impressive job in computerchess! > >Perhaps just not quite the job they want us make believe :-) I believe, like anyone else, they must have their insecurities. I really think the hype surrounding the whole affair has taken a toll on them. Like any chess programmer, they realize that their creation is fallible and that some luck is always involved. They are understandably a little paranoid about revealing all. But this shouldn't take away from the fact that they worked their butt's off and it payed off for them. >So the whole thing was no really impressive hour - neither for computer >science nor for human history - from my view looking back now after the >the comments from both IBM and Hsu on one hand and Gary Kasparov on the >other. I never thought it was either. I think the hype distorted the importance of the match. But, then again, it certainly will go down in history as an important milestone which it certainly was. I see the whole thing as people being people. You may very well find that the Deep Blue team has a viewpoint on all of this too. I don't think they made any serious pretenses that this would be something for us scientists. It was after all a commercial endeavor. But the Deep Blue team themselves ARE scientists and good ones. In this case they were representing IBM and had an obligation to them. And Kasparov's point of view is also very legitimate. He talks about the things that made the match difficult for him and expresses his viewpoints very nicely. I choose not to view this as good versus evil but merely as an interesting event in human history. - Don >All in all: >I don't know if CB express 62 has already been announced here before, >but I had a lot of fun in reading and viewing it. > > >Kind regards from Dirk
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.