|Mar-29-04|| ||ArturoRivera: This is another prove of what a human can do against a computer, altough the computer has a greater analisis and can see further, human thinking and creativity greatly rush the omputer thinking. |
|Jul-10-04|| ||JacoPastorius: Wow, that's simply not true of this game at all. On page 79 of Feng-Hsiung Hsu's "Behind Deep Blue," the loss is explained. Before move 52, the computer has analyzed a move that would result in a draw. "For reasons unknown, Deep Thought found the move, but then decided to look for an alternate drawing move. The new move however, lost outright." A bug in the software's time allocation forced the computer to spend 20 minutes trying to rediscover that original draw move. The game should have been a draw. |
|Jul-10-04|| ||Dionyseus: Wow, how did Deep Thought miss 52..Rg2+ ??
Fritz 7 found it in less than a second!
In fact, Fritz thinks 52..h3 is the 6th best move, and that it loses by about 3 pawns.
|Oct-28-05|| ||garfi: what, deep thought lost?
|Nov-06-15|| ||happyjuggler0: <JacoPastorius> In other words, Deep Thought blundered.|
|Nov-06-15|| ||perfidious: And Ah thought Pastorius was long gone.
Shows what Ah know!
|Nov-06-15|| ||happyjuggler0: <perfidious> After your comment it occurred to me that there might actually be a Jaco Pastorius, presumably deceased. Sure enough: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaco_...|
I guess I am just musically ignorant....
|Nov-06-15|| ||perfidious: A better example of the silicon wretch's capabilities from this event may be seen in Deep Thought vs Igor Ivanov, 1988; I had lost to the computer in a previous round and was a bit put out at the way I had played. Then came this demolition.|
|Mar-16-17|| ||RookFile: Alburt made the most of his chances in the endgame. I guess the computer missed a draw, but Alburt's play was instructive - he went all in on forcing the f pawn up the board.|