Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:52:16 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 19:43:45, Matthew Hull wrote: >On April 24, 2005 at 11:42:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On April 24, 2005 at 11:26:32, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2005 at 10:13:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On April 24, 2005 at 05:14:48, Peter Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 23, 2005 at 23:52:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Several of us have looked at the logs for the games, and game 2 looked perfectly >>>>>>normal and the program even reported a fail low and "panic time" where it >>>>>>searched longer than normal because of the fail low. >>>>>> >>>>>>This is a red herring and crap. >>>>> >>>>>When was the first time someone independent had a look at these logfiles? Have >>>>>you and the several others had a chance to look at the logfiles right after the >>>>>games took place, say May 1997? >>>>> >>>>>The logfiles IBM published eventually mean nothing at all. This was more than a >>>>>year after the games, wasn't it? Even I could produce most impressive logfiles >>>>>given that much time .. >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes. Several looked at the log right after the event. I believe that Ken sent >>>>me the section from the game although I don't remember whether it was the Qxb6 >>>>(not played) or the Be4 position. I believe that Amir posted something about >>>>the position early, but his comments were based on either not understanding what >>>>DB's log output meant, or something else. >>>> >>>>This was about the "fail low (panic time)" that caused DB to search much longer >>>>than normal and may have been on the Be4 move although I simply don't remember >>>>much about it since it was not a particularly significant event in my mind >>>>because at the time I posted an excerpt from a Crafty log that looked >>>>_identical_ in concept. >>>> >>>>Nothing ever looked strange about the log stuff to me... >>> >>> >>>Kasparov never saw them did he? >>> >>> He was the one that requested them. >>> >>>He was the one under pressure. >>> >>>Review by third parties 'after the fact', >>> >>>way after the fact, do not excuse what happened. >>> >>>I doubt if any Grandmaster, then or now, would go into a Match >>> >>>against 'any' Opponent blind, or accept the Match conditions Kasparov did. >> >> >>Kasparov was seriously believing that this was a science clarification but when >>the scientists behaved like known crooks in sports he was completely losing his >>motivation to play decent chess. That is the crucial point. The position of Bob >>Hyatt is absolutely ok if you forget about the usually good relationship the >>team around Hsu had towards Kasparov. But if you dont forget that then you begin >>to realise what a fishy job they had played vs Kasparov who formerly was their >>buddy. Psychologically that is trivial. At first you woo somebody and when you >>won him, then you can play dirty and the guy is completely lost, most of all >>because of his perception that he could be so blind and to be so naive. > > >GK was beaten in a match by DeepBlue II. It was a portent. Now, on ICC, you >can watch GMs getting smashed, thrashed, pumelled, flogged and slaughtered, all >day and night long. They win a few games here and there and get evicerated the >rest of the time. > >All whining defenders of human chess superiority need to grow up. Humans aren't >as consistently good as computers anymore. Humans are toast in chess, now. In Blitz and Rapid, yes. > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Grandmasters prepare a dossier against their opponents and study them for >>> >>>months before a match. The Deep Blue team would not let Garry have access to >>> >>>even a glimpse of the Prematch training games of Deep Blue. >>> >>>With good reason of course; they knew that the Computer could not beat him fair >>> >>> and square.
This page took 0.01 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.