Author: Walter Faxon
Date: 20:09:13 05/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 30, 2005 at 22:54:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 30, 2005 at 17:20:57, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On April 30, 2005 at 15:34:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2005 at 16:32:16, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On April 29, 2005 at 06:50:46, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 29, 2005 at 05:23:51, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 23:17:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 22:01:24, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 20:30:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 15:17:13, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On April 28, 2005 at 14:12:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Hsu didn't win. Deep Blue "won". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>1. DBII lost in game one. Very badly. Kasparov's superior chess! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>2. Then Kasparov gave up a drawn game. He was very confused. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>3. Then three draws. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>4. Then Kasparov threw another game. He was no longer in the match since the >>>>>>>>>>second game... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>So, where DBII WON a single game? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The _official_ history of the match has DB winning rounds 2 and 6, losing round >>>>>>>>>1, and drawing the rest. What part of that is confusing? If you want to play >>>>>>>>>word games and say that the 1-0 result in round two means black lost rather than >>>>>>>>>that white won, fine. In round 1 DB lost, Kasparov didn't win. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Could not the same thing be said about Game 6? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>That was my point. That was Rolf's claim in fact. It works both ways. But >>>>>>>whether DB won a game, or Kasparov lost the game, the final result is _exactly_ >>>>>>>the same... >>>>>> >>>>>>The final result is not exactly the same in the meaning that if DB won games not >>>>>>thanks to stupid errors of kasparov then the impression of the chess players >>>>>>could be that DB is better than Kasparov and after the match the impression of >>>>>>the chess players was not that DB is better than Kasparov. >>>>>> >>>>>>Both mistakes of kasparov in the games that he lost are mistakes that kasparov >>>>>>does not do against humans and both were result of not understanding the >>>>>>machine. >>>>>> >>>>>>In game 2 Kasparov believed that he has no chance for a perpetual check because >>>>>>he believed that DB could see it after getting the impression that DB saw >>>>>>another perpetual earlier in the game because it was the only way that kasparov >>>>>>could explain DB's move to himself. >>>>>>The result was that he even did not analyze this possibility. >>>>>> >>>>>>In game 6 Kasparov played for a line that he was not ready to play. >>>>>> >>>>>>DB did not get a losing position in game 1 because of a stupid error so the >>>>>>story of game 1 is different. >>>>>> >>>>>>The impression of the chess players after the match was that DBII was not better >>>>>>than Kasparov at 1997 inspite of the results. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>If you want to say that DBII played just 6 games and therefore nothing was >>>>>proved - that's fine. That was indeed a horrible waste of resources. >>>>> >>>>>But this crap about game 1 being a "quality win" while games 2 and 6 were junk - >>>>>come on. >>>>> >>>>>The "cleanest" game was game 2. Yes, there was an extremely difficult perpetual >>>>>at the end that was missed by both sides, but aside from that it was a nice >>>>>"positional" game. You can just pretend that Kasparov resigned two or three >>>>>moves earlier. >>>> >>>>No >>>> >>>>There was no reason to resign in game 2 earlier. >>>> >>>>You resign when you believe that you have no practical chances and the game >>>>proves that kasparov had practical chances earlier. >>>> >>>>I believe that kasparov resigned only because of the fact that the opponent was >>>>a computer and he believed that the program cannot miss a perpetual after it did >>>>not miss a similiar idea of very deep perpetual earlier(at least this is what he >>>>believed because he had no different explanation for earlier moves of DBII) so >>>>he even did not check if he has a perpetual and assumed that he has no chances. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>I don't buy that reasoning. It assumes that somehow Kasparov "knew" that the >>>computer thought it was winning before and after the move it played. How would >>>he know whether or not DB was making a move that led to a forced repetition, as >>>its best alternative? He couldn't see the display... >> >>He could not see the display but he could know that the position of deeper blue >>is better based on positional knowledge so he also believed that the machine >>knows it. >> > >That is a circular definition. He knows it because he knows it. > >I've seen many positions in both human and computer chess where one side appears >to be better, but the opposite is true, or the position is a draw, even though >one side appears to have a significant edge at first glance. > > > > >>The machine had alternative moves that did not give Kasparov the chance to force >>perpetual check and kasparov believed that the machine will choose one of them >>in case that he has a perpetual check so he even did not analyze the line that >>he sacrifice a piece and assume it is not drawn and analyzed only the line that >>he get inferior endgame. > >Same problem. It didn't play a move that didn't lead to a draw, because it was >winning. But what if in reality, those "non-drawing" moves were actually losing >moves, or at least DB believed they were losing? > >I think it is completely foolish to play your game based on what you believe the >machine might or might not see. To do otherwise invites this very kind of >problem. I believe Kasparov "trusted" that DB would not have allowed a perpetual, so to "save face" as well as effort, he resigned. Not wise policy, but people often do foolish things. As an example of "trusting" your opponent, I have often read where, when a GM takes a good long think then offers a sacrifice, his (or her) GM opponent will decline immediately, on principle. Why assume that you can out-think another GM tactically? Why assume that this particular sacrifice is unsound? Instead, just make good moves and make turn the time your opponent used into a waste -- which is always a clear gain. >>I believe that kasparov never did the mistake of resigning in a drawn position >>against humans so the fact that he resigned in a drawn position against deeper >>blue needs some explanation. > > >Yes, but a simple "I failed to notice the draw, I thought white had a way out >but I had mis-calculated" would have been the better answer. > > >> >>Note that even if we get the wrong assumption that deeper blue cannot miss >>perpetual check that humans can find then Kasparov could still hope that he may >>force the machine to choose between letting him draw by perpetual check and >>letting him another draw from inferior endgame by it's evaluation when the >>machine does not allow him perpetual check so it is clear that not analyzing the >>option of perpetual check was a mistake because even if Deeper blue can escape >>from perpetual then the question how it can escape is important. >> >>Uri
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.