Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:19:21 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. I'll bet you didn't see the real draw... because it is 30 moves deep. And it took a bunch of people all night with computers and brains in gear to find this . You might have "thought" it was a draw... But that's a long way from "knowing" it is a draw. And I'm not trying to be insulting... but a bunch of GM players didn't see it either... It's non-trivial... > 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, This is not a convincing argument. It might well be that you *thought* those positions were won when they were really forced draws. DB was *not* a pushover. Without someone showing a demonstrated win I would remain skeptical... > 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. >> >> 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, 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!
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.