Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 11:27:38 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 14:19:04, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >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! What i said is that it would be ridiculous for anyone to assume that after 9 games because Anand was ahead by 1 game to say that it was the superior player. I didn't say anything about denying that he was close in strength. Nor did i imply for or against the proposition that deep blue is close in strength to Kasparov. What i said was that it is ridiculous for people to claim that deep blue is the superior player over Kasparov based upon only six games(especially those games). A claim that has been made far, far too many times.
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.