Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:30:12 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 08:16:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 04:30:44, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On November 10, 1998 at 03:47:08, odell hall wrote: >> >>> >>> After The Last Game of the Match Between World Champion Garry Kasparov and >>>Deeperblue, At the Press Conference Garry Announced "I want to assure everyone >>>here that if deepblue were to start playing real chess, I personaly guarantee I >>>would have torn it to shreds with no question". These words have echoed in my >>>mind every since the match ended, I had no understanding of them then and I do >>>not understand them now. What does garry mean by "real chess"?? I thought that's >>>what was being played in the first place. I wonder if this was just the angry >>>reaction of a man who has never expierenced defeat in match play, or if the >>>statement has any truth. I am assuming that garry means that if deepblue were to >>>play published games then other grandmasters could study the games and find >>>weakness. However My understanding is that what makes deeper special and >>>radically more sophisicated then it's predessor is it's ability to change it's >>>style of play in mid stream, a credit to the Brillance of the deepblue team. My >>>impression is that it was extremely presumptous of garry to say he would tear it >>>to pieces! What is this evaluation based on? Is he making the statement based on >>>his past expierences with strong computer programs, in which after several games >>>he was able to find weakness and exploit them? The fact is that he was unable to >>>repeat this strategy against deeperblue during the second match, so what makes >>>him think he could do it at a future time? Personally I don't think Garry would >>>have a chance against deeperblue in a future match >> >>1)He did not play the same program in the second match >> >>2)I looked at the games and the wins of deeper blue were not convincing >> >>In the second game of the match deeper blue won only because of a stupid mistake >>of kasparov(kasparov resigned in a draw position because he believed the machine >>can see everything in tactics >> >>In the last game kasparov did another stupid mistake when he played an opening >>he was not prepared to play. >> >>I expected deeper blue to win before the match but I was dissapointed from >>deeper blue and I expect gary kasparov to win the same deeper blue in a future >>match >> >> >>, The Machine has already >>>demonstrated an unbeatable endgame and ofcourse garry's flair for tactics is >>>useless against a machine that calculates 1 billion nodes per second! >> >>I do not agree because the machine proved it can miss tactical long lines(it did >>not see the draw in the second game) >> >>Uri > > >this is dead wrong. It overlooked a draw in game two that *kasparov* also >overlooked. But when it played Be4 rather than Qb6, the move that Kasparov >insisted won a pawn, it turns out that DB had seen a *very* deep draw there, >one that Kasparov also overlooked. > >So to pick on deep blue for overlooking one of two deep draws seems a tad >wrong when the current world champion overlooked *both* of them. No one >says the machine has to play "perfect"... only "better"... Exactly !! No one plays perfect chess and never will. There are mistakes in every win/loss. If you can't find them it's because of your human failing. Uri, you need to stop fauting chess programs because they don't play perfect chess. They play very good chess now and will get better ( As long as you keep picking them apart and pointing out weaknesses for the programer's to fix). But they will never be perfect. As for Kasparov's statement- that's just a world class ego that had just got bruised. Jim Walker
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.