Author: Lanny DiBartolomeo
Date: 11:19:04 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 10:29:12, Reynolds Takata wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 03:47:08, odell hall wrote: > No offense but i'm seriously doubting that those words have echoed in your >ears, because Kasparov to my recollection said "if deepblue were to start >playing TOURNAMENT chess, I personaly guarantee I will tear it to shreds". >Would Kasparov tear it to shreds? Well who knows that's only conjecture. >However, just as Kasparov may be drawing too big of conclusions from the >match,you are as well. Especially considering the short nature of the match. >Heck if Jan Timman had beaten Kasparov ina match or even Judit Polgar had beaten >Polgar in a match, nobody and i mean nobody, would be claiming that either of >those players were better than Kasparov. Another thing is that you are >overlooking the POSSIBILITY of LUCK. I say this, because as a master i know >that there is luck. An example, though i am only an average master, in the game >that Kasparov resigned that was a draw. I saw the draw almost instantaneously, >maybe a minute to check to make sure of it is all. As for everyone not seeing >the move that's not true. In fact many players believed there was something. I >wont forget I.M. Ashleys shock when it happened he says at the moment something >to the effect "What? Kasparov is resigning?" In a very shocked voice. At that >point many people just stopped examining the position. Further, 2 more of the >games Kasparov was had winning positions(and blew) that most average GM's would >have won, and also He was playing totally uncharacteristically falling for a >cheap shot in the carokann. If he played anything like that previously he would >have never become world champion. An example KK recently told you to put Hiarcs >on "Aggressive style" as opposed to the default style. One of the styles is >better or worse, and if it played a match with the worse style(possibly a worse >book), you wouldn't say it reflected on the program, but rather on the settings. > Kasparov played in a totally uncharacteristic style, and further played bad >openings and still almost won the match(the score was very close)! And as for >you mentioning deep blues flexibility, well i like computer chess too, but don't >be fooled into thinking deep blue is a flexible as Kasparov. Top players, and >Top computer experts almost all if they had to bet money would give kasparov an >edge in another match ESPECIALLY if it was a longer match. Why do i say 6 games >isn't enough? Well for one, NO world championship match has ever been that >short! The reason that 6 games neither in the past or the present would have >convinced anyone that a human player was the stronger than the current world >champion of the time. So why would you all of a sudden make a claim that Deep >Blue is stronger based on 6 games? Answer just as some people are biased >towards humans you are obviously biased for computers. By this reasoning Anand >should have been considered better than Kasparov after the first 9 GAMES of >their world championship because Anand was in the lead! No one would make such >a claim, because to have done so simply based on the 9 games would have been >close to ridiculous. Hi, I don't think if a person was to imply this it would be close to ridiculous. If im playing a person and after 9 games there up with me or slightly ahead of me, I am under the impression that they're going to give me a run for my money, and to do this they couldn't be that far from your strength,and turn the situation around if I was winning someone after nine games I'd know I wasn't inferior to this person and I'd know for certain i could give him some good matches! Wouldn't you? or I may even lose!
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.