Author: Reynolds Takata
Date: 01:25:06 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 17:19:21, Robert Hyatt 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. > >I'll bet you didn't see the real draw... Well Bob you can bet all you want have a coke and a smile. 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. The above statement isn't an arguement. As for them being Winning positions you need to try to understand what is generally meant when players and Chess periodicals say winning. You can have mate in two and not win. The above is not only my analysis but MANY Grandmasters as well, you only have to look around for the confirmation of this, which include statements by Anand and Orlov. 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... Bob what else can one expect from a skeptic? > > >> 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.