Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:52:12 11/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1998 at 05:28:19, Amir Ban wrote: >Yes, you got it right. > >The PV for Deep-Blue on all iterations except the last starts 36.Qb6 Qe7 37.axb5 >Rab8 38.Qxa6 e4 39.Bxe4 Qe5. In the last iteration, there's no PV. > >This is the variation that Kasparov and others talked about. > >I disagree with your description of the attack as "dead wrong". You give here >the "official" computer chess opinion on it. Kasparov and others GM's would >maybe play it without hesitation, on an "only chance" basis, and would call it >speculative rather than wrong. White is better, but black has a real game going. > >It is exactly this difference in the computer and human outlook that made >Kasparov doubt that the computer played axb5 on its own. What makes me discount this so readily is that I have a hard time stomaching what would have been necessary for there to have been intervention. 1) Someone would have to understand chess well enough to understand that this is a crucial point and that something can and should be done here. 2) Someone has to understand how to diddle DB so that it can avoid wrecking its output file with something that is unquestionably incriminating. 3) This all has to be done in reasonably finite time. Additionally this has to be done in such fashion that either very few people know about it, or those who do are as dishonest as the people who did it. I have to believe that this would have had to have been pre-planned and would have had to involve more than one person. I have a hard time believing that someone was into the game well enough to understand what was going on, was able to make a judgement that in this of all places something needed to be done, was able to come up with a move that would freak Kasparov, and was able to get this all decided and actually execute it without getting busted by someone who was on the scene. I think that it makes way more sense to assume that the program spit out something weird and the opponent got paranoid. We have Shirov on record recently as regarding a move in another circumstance as being unfindable by a computer, and every computer finds it except his. I don't see why Occam's razor doesn't just completely kill this whole thing. bruce
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.