< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·
|Jan-10-02|| ||Sneaky: I'll admit that the combination 16. Nc7+! is brilliant, but how can a supercomputer miss a two-mover?? |
|Jan-10-02|| ||Sneaky: Well, to be fair, it's a lot deeper than a 2 mover. Black is lost on move 15; I can't find any move for Black that doesn't lose outright. |
|Jan-24-02|| ||knight: Deep thought is totally unrecognizable this game. It played like a human. |
|Jan-22-03|| ||BlitzChessFan: An interesting glimpse into the insanity that must rage on inside his head. |
|Apr-15-03|| ||chessamateur: I have a book called How Computers Play Chess. It has a whole chapter on the Kasparov-Deep Thought Match. The match came about when Shelby Lyman, a New York chess promoter, asked Kasparov if he wanted to play DEEP THOUGHT in a match for
$10,000. Kasparov, being Kasparov accepted. The game was played with 90 minutes on each side (not a whole lot). First, to give some
information on DEEP THOUGHT (for those who don't
know), its FIDE rating was somewhere around 2480-2500. It ran on a 3 SUN comptuers linked together, each having a dual processor VLSI chess circuit. "The dual-processor circuit
shared the search of branches at positions deep in the tree, while the 3 SUNs divided up the search as dictated by the conventional principal variation splitting algorithm. Each dual-processor searched approximately 720,000 chess postiions per second; the overall system searcher 3 X 720,000 chess positions per second -- somewhere between 200,000,000 and 500,000,000 per move!" (Levy 12). For those of you who know a lot about this stuff, please feel free to comment on this.
Now, DEEP THOUGHT'S opening book was very small (It's first move out of the book was 6... c6? which was due to the castling bug. This is move was bad enough to lose the game against a player as good as Kasparov). So in both games DEEP THOUGHT, ever faithful to computer's nature, tries to hold to the extra pawn. Of course this only leads to trouble. As a result, DEEP
THOUGHT falls farther and farther behind in development. And as a result of that, Kasparov well.... you get the picture. Not only that, but there was also a castling bug: A bug that
would have DEEP THOUGHT to want to castle, but other moves were given priority. Therefore, DEEP THOUGHT wanted to castle, but would only do so at the end of a principal continuation. The
bug was related to a problem in the parallel code (what ever that means [maybe someone can help]?). If that was not bad enough, get this: There was also a second bug in the parallel
code. The Program did not always choose the best move found by the Processors. Which moves were affected by that, I can't tell, though.
I hope this give you guys some more information that was helpful.
|Feb-07-04|| ||zion: that was a pretty weak game by deep thought.
Though Deep Thought would still beat me any day I reckon.
I personally dont like playing computers at chess because in my experience they also make stupid moves that may seem good for a bit but end up leaving their position full of holes and weaknesses.
|Apr-13-04|| ||Kansas Player: Fantabulously brilliant!
*lights candles on cake* And a Happy Birthday to Kasparov!
|Apr-13-04|| ||kevin86: On the other hand,what do we buy a computer for its birthday? A new game program. (lol).|
It's easy to see how fast comps have evolved in fifteen years-(I know the machines haven't evolved,as a living species does-but it seems that way)
|Apr-13-04|| ||Dillinger: I would say the machine gave Garry a birthday present. Strange however, considering that computers are *man's natural enemy!* |
|Apr-13-04|| ||jcordova: Can anyone explain why black plays 12. ... Qd6 instead of 12. ... Bxh1?
|Apr-13-04|| ||acirce: Because of 13. Bb5+ winning the Queen |
|Apr-13-04|| ||GoodKnight: Because after 13. Bb5+, Black has no choice but to give up the queen. |
|Apr-13-04|| ||Cerebrate2006: he loses his queen anyway so why not? |
|Apr-13-04|| ||crafty: 12...♗xh1 13. ♗b5+ ♕d7 14. ♗xd7+ ♔xd7 15. ♕a4+ ♔d8 16. ♗b6+ (eval 9.07; depth 11 ply; 750M nodes)|
|Apr-13-04|| ||Bobsterman3000: A masterful win. Back home in North Carolina we call this a good, 'ol-fashioned a**-whippin'.|
By the 12th move (Bxc4) Kasparov's pieces are dominating the center of the board, and black's lone developed piece is far from support and virtually powerless, despite its inconsequential threat against the h1 rook.
|Apr-13-04|| ||Jim Bartle: I remember reading about this games years ago, but I thought it ended on move 20. |
|Jul-29-04|| ||Knight13: I don't think Deep Thought is stronger than Fritz or Deep Blue. Old computer. Good game. |
|Jul-30-04|| ||alexandrovm: What a crazy Kasparov game! It seems that he is just making fun over the computer, wow.
Here it was played the Queen's Gambit Accepted. Back in the 80's there was a controversy over a variant of this opening. Some GM's supported the QGA with the Botvinnik system (for black), while Kasparov supported white's position. This debate was won by Kasparov (playing this system as white) several times, in chess competitions at that time. That's why not to many dare to play this opening with him, choosing the Queen Gambit Declined instead. |
|Dec-01-04|| ||allanon880: Computers make many poor moves. They are no match for the human brain. It goes to prove that the computer is only as smart as the man that programs it. |
|Dec-02-04|| ||acirce: <They are no match for the human brain.>|
Tell that to Kasparov and Kramnik.
|Dec-02-04|| ||offramp: I can't do it myself but I think that by playing known anti-computer lines that nearly all GMs can beat computers. Why they don't play these lines is a mystery to me.
We must all know the lines that I mean; the ones that either close up the position completely or those that offer a piece on g5 with a pawn on h4 before you've castled, thus opening up the h-file.
They really can do it - GMs I mean.
Why don't they do it - well, where else is chess sponsorship coming from?
|Jan-03-05|| ||Jaymthegenius: I play 1.a3 on Yahoo! at times because they use computers to cheat alot, and 1.a3 is an anti-computer move. |
|Jan-03-05|| ||Bobsterman3000: Well, at least Deep Thought did manage to inflict doubled A-Pawns on Garry. |
|Jan-28-05|| ||Jaymthegenius: In youre profile you say "Kasperov is best of all time!, get over"
I disagree, as Kasparov has lost to Karpov, Anand, Ivanchuck, and Kramink in the past. I think it would be better to say Kramnik, Polgar, Karpov, Leko, Svidler, Larsen, Kasparov, Anand, and Ivanchuck are the best of all time, and the fact that Kramnik is world champion but Kasparov is highest rated player proves how flawed the ELO system is. |
|Jan-28-05|| ||square dance: <jaymthegenius> you moron, kasparov has also beaten all of those people too. |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 2 ·