Author: Amir Ban
Date: 04:09:43 11/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 08:16:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 04:30:44, blass uri wrote: > >> >>On November 10, 1998 at 03:47:08, odell hall wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 >> >>1)He did not play the same program in the second match >> >>2)I looked at the games and the wins of deeper blue were not convincing >> >>In the second game of the match deeper blue won only because of a stupid mistake >>of kasparov(kasparov resigned in a draw position because he believed the machine >>can see everything in tactics >> >>In the last game kasparov did another stupid mistake when he played an opening >>he was not prepared to play. >> >>I expected deeper blue to win before the match but I was dissapointed from >>deeper blue and I expect gary kasparov to win the same deeper blue 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! >> >>I do not agree because the machine proved it can miss tactical long lines(it did >>not see the draw in the second game) >> >>Uri > > >this is dead wrong. It overlooked a draw in game two that *kasparov* also >overlooked. But when it played Be4 rather than Qb6, the move that Kasparov >insisted won a pawn, it turns out that DB had seen a *very* deep draw there, >one that Kasparov also overlooked. > Don't know where this interesting but false piece of information comes from. Deep Blue evaluated 37.Qb6 as +32 so it didn't see a draw, if there is indeed one to see here. Amir
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.