Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:51:42 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 07:35:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 20, 2002 at 07:22:11, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On November 20, 2002 at 03:29:50, Pavel Blokhine wrote: >> >>>What oepnings book Deep Blue used against Gary Kasparov and how many games it >>>had? Does anybody knows? In the sixth and last game, Deep Blue used a knight >>>sacrifice that few programs will have considered or made. And it made some very >>>human like moves all troughout the 6 matchs so may be Gary Kasparov was right on >>>his hints that there may have been some cheating from the IBM team. >> >>The knight sacrifice seemed to catch Kasparov off guard. You are right most >>proframs are either told to back up the knight or would not make it on their >>own. > >Deeper blue also made it out of it's book. >I do not think that deep blue was going to make it on his own. > > After the game, almost everyone said that the h6 by Kasparov was a >>mistake. Obviously he played it in anticipation that DB would back up the >>knight (because Fritz always backed up the knight). > >I think that the reason that he expected it was simply because he had the >illusion that deep blue is out of book. > >> >>Some point to this game as to how faulty Kasparov's preparation was for the >>match. The mistakes: >> >>1. He played many games against Fritz. Fritz is no Deep Blue. He though Deep >>Blue would make moves like Fritz. > >How do you know. Common knowledge. He said so. Friedel said so... etc... >There were a lot of chess programs at that time genius,wchess,Mchess,Hiarcs. >Why Fritz? ChessBase. Need I say more? > >Genius was the best program at the time of the match. In 1997? Not even close... > >> >>2, He tried to employed an anti-computer strategy. He might have been better >>off just pretending he was playing a top GM and make the moves he would normally >>play. >> >>The concept that DB and their team cheated is ludicrous. One it would involve >>many people - people that have gone their separate ways since the match. >>Somebody would talk about it. Two, that would not be in IBM's best interest - >>after all they make computers! > >I agree about the first reason. >I do not agree about the second. > >The fact that they make computers is not a reason for IBM not to cheat. > >Uri
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.