Author: Tim Mirabile
Date: 12:07:27 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 14:27:38, Reynolds Takata wrote: >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. I agree with this. If Timman had won that six game exhibition vs. Kasparov a couple of months ago, would we be proclaiming him champion now? Also, Boris Gulko until recently has always been a tough opponent for Kasparov, holding a big plus score over many years, but he is not even a championship contender. It's not enough to be good against one person. For Deep Blue to get a real shot at Kasparov's title, it would have to play dozens of published games, which could then be used by opponents in the later stages for preparation. For example, here was the title road for a U.S. player back when there was a traditional championship cycle: - Play enough games and get a high enough rating to qualify for the U.S. Championship in a Zonal year. - Place high enough in the U.S. Championship to qualify for the Interzonal. - Place high enough in the Interzonal to qualify for the Candidates matches. - Win all the Candidates matches to make it to the Championship match. - Win the Championship match. So it is not and never has been enough to beat just one person in a short match to become world champion. It is quite possible that if Deep Blue had to compete in this cycle that it would get knocked out before reaching the final. Either that or it would be facing a thoroughly prepared Kasparov for the title. Even if the opening book of Deep Blue is changed regularly, the important thing would be to get a chance to see what kind of errors and brilliancies the thing is capable of. Game 2 was such a shock to Kasparov simply because he did not have any idea that the machine was capable of playing that type of positional game so well, and yet also be capable of overlooking a tactical draw.
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.