Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:02:12 01/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2003 at 13:46:33, Dennis Breuker wrote: >On January 13, 2003 at 11:02:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 13, 2003 at 10:51:00, K. Burcham wrote: >> >>> >>>Kasparov,G (2785) - Deep Blue (2885) >>>Game 1 >>>03.05.1997 >>> >>> >>>Robert, I am not sure if you have stated your opinion on this move. >>>Did you think this move was a bug in Deep Blue? >>> >>>Deep Blue here played 44...Rd1 >>>[D] 4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 44 >>> >>>kburcham >> >> >>I am not sure, but I believe that it was caused by a bug. Hsu said something >>about it playing a "random move" if some particular set of circumstances >>happened >>which included a "fail low"... > >Yes, it was a bug (see "Behind Deep Blue", page 223). > >On page 224 there is a funny anecdote: the Kasparov team was >puzzled by Rd1 (instead of the expected Rf5) and ><quote grom book> >the whole Kasparov camp went into a very deep analysis on >why the alternative move 44..Rf5 was no good. In the end, >they concluded that the reason why Deep Blue did not play >44..Rf5 was "It probably saw mates in twenty or more [moves]". >I could not help but burst out laughing. ><end quote> > >Why ask Robert if you can buy the book, and read the answer from >Hsu himself? > >Dennis I once played (using blitz, prior to Cray Blitz) in a human event, and I made an ill-advised change between rounds. The effect was that in a certain case, it would play the _worst_ possible move (sort of like reversing alpha and beta). It made this amazing looking sacrifice that was 100% unsound and the opponent refused to take it. He asked after the game "if I had taken the queen would I have gotten mated?" I responded "nope, you would have just won a queen." He was amazed...
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.