Author: Joe McCarro
Date: 09:17:48 07/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
My view is that in 1997, for being a world chess champion, Kasparov was surprisingly ignorant of chess computers. His comments liek the one Dan quotes below made me wonder if he thought deep blue was pulled out of the sputnik like an old 1940s radio. He demonstrated very little understanding about computers weaknesses and strengths. However, recently I think he knew more about computers. I think he had actually cooked the book in game one agaisnt junior. I think he played standard anti computer chess with the hedgehog postion. Then in the second to last game with Bxh2 he probably din't knwo that a computer would make such a sacrifice. I think Juniors team gambled and won. Kasparov couldn't talk to anyone and had more faith in the computers analysis than his own at that point. In a way his knowledge of computers actually hurt him here. he knew they calculated flawlessly within their horizon. He also knew with his kings cover blown the horizon would be extremely far out there. he jsut didn't have the confidence that the Junior team would gamble so much to make junior so aggressive as to play an inferior move in order to keep it complicated and him on edge. I admit much of what i said is speculation. Amir posts here so he would know for sure if Junior was "juiced" to play agressively thus evaluating Bxh2 as the best move. also I'm a patzer but with the help of my comp[uters analysis it looked like he had a very good position, but after some harrowing defensive moves. Also you have to watch what is said for hyperbole and what is said for On July 21, 2003 at 22:59:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 21, 2003 at 22:53:34, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On July 21, 2003 at 22:48:02, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On July 21, 2003 at 22:44:23, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On July 21, 2003 at 22:39:14, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 21, 2003 at 22:32:41, Sherry Washington wrote: >>>>>[snip] >>>>>> Well Computer Chess is a very broad Subject, I was specifically Discussing the >>>>>>area of Computer Chess Strength, which I do believe Kasparov would know alot >>>>>>more in that area then You. Ofcourse the programming aspects you would probally >>>>>>know alot more then him. >>>>> >>>>>Kasparov has made horrible guesses about computer chess strength in the past. I >>>>>think he is a very bad person to use as an expert. >>>> >>>>Can you think of a better expert on _chess_? >>>> >>>>Have you ever seen, with your own eyes, Kasparov go through a varation on a >>>>chess board? >>>> >>>>He might not be the reigning king on 'how to beat a computer at chess', but by >>>>God his opinions are far from 'unsubstantiated'. >>>> >>>>Do you think Kaspy has never played a computer on a PC, and that he's just >>>>pulling these opinions from his ass? I am quite sure that he probably has >>>>entered positions into <insert commercial program here>, and has been surprised >>>>by what a little 'ol PC will do nowadays. I don't think his claims are 100% on >>>>the dot, but I don't think he's talking non-sense either. >>> >>>Dann said: "he [Kasparov] is a very bad person to use as an expert [in computer >>>chess]". I totally agree with him. Kasparov hardly knows how opening books work, >>>let alone other areas... >>> >>>The fact that Kasparov is the unrivaled expert is chess, doesn't make him a >>>computer chess expert. >> >>That's like saying "Don't ask Dale Earnhardt or John Force to work on your car. >>They only know about hot rods." >> >>I never claimed Garry was any kind of expert on "computer chess", but rather >>"chess". And that people should think about putting a little more 'trust' into >>what he says. That's all. >> >>It is by all means, your choice. > >"No computer can make that move!"
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.