|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-31-11 | | JoergWalter: That time, if I remember correctly, Kasparov (in his words) was fighting for nothing less than the honour of the human race. Korchnoi, the old sarcastic man, commented: nobody asked him to fight for the honour of the human race and more important, nobody asked him to loose it. |
 |
Jul-31-11
 | | scormus: <King Radio> I was a bit curious about this myself, so I did the same as you, only with Rybka. Didnt choose 8 Nxe6 (Ne4 instead) but playing it from 8 Nxe6 gave the same eval (+0.20) and the same continuation as in the game until 11 ...b5. 11 ... b5 might look bad but Rybka need to go to d=13 to find a better move, the none too obvious ... Nh7 which it rates at +0.12 (in favor of W) at d=19. GK might be forgiven for not playing it. Surely IBM were delighted with the outcome and no doubt took max profit. If you take <pawnmonster's> interpretation at face value (I agree completely with the comment and I seem to remember seeing similar a long time ago) then it says a lot about the relative strengths and weaknesses of human and machine. My take ... GK was a supreme player against a human opponent (Nige, you agree?) But what made him so good in comparison with other players might have been a weakness against a machine. Yet somehow my street smarts cause a little bell to ring in my head. I think GK was caught off guard, he knew the position and didnt think any machine would choose 8 Nxe6. So why did it make this "human" choice? |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | JoergWalter: man vs. machine
http://youtu.be/y9UMt-8gfW8
http://youtu.be/TdykHC93PrA
http://youtu.be/cUqXr9Jlhwc |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | JoergWalter: Sometimes you loose and sometimes you do not win. Resigning a game has a new interpretation: "Deep Blue did not win one of the first 5 games."
"gsme 2 I resigned when I can force a draw. force a draw. I resigned in a completely drawn position" That the final position in Game 2 was a draw was told Kasparov by Dochojan after the game on the way to an italian restaurant. |
|
| Jul-31-11 | | BobCrisp: <I think GK was caught off guard, he knew the position and didnt think any machine would choose 8 Nxe6. So why did it make this "human" choice?> I assume it was still in book. Anyway, the game logs are still available: http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblu... The same ones that <Kasparov> didn't know about for five years whilst still calling for their release! http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt... |
|
| Aug-23-11 | | SeanBurdine: Kasparov lost this match the day before, when his KN pawn had a clear path to become a Queen and he *thought* he had the game won -- only to see Deep Blue salvage a miraculous draw by perpetual check. Kasparov, already exhausted from playing his fifth incredibly strenuous game in just 8 days, didn't get so much as a single day off to recover before Game 6, and psychologically he was crushed from the result of Game 5. He clearly wasn't anywhere near the level in Game 6 as he was in the first 5 games. Thus, the title of Chess Champion passes to a computer, and humans have yet to reclaim it. I frankly doubt they ever will. |
|
| Aug-29-11 | | Kittysafe: This game makes no sense to me, for either player really. At move 8, the computer can pull back the knight to either offer a trade of knights, or pull back to the right and avoid capture at all. Moves 16, 17, and 18 literally make no sense lol.
White sacrifices a bishop to take the queen, who does that?
No one would take that bait!!!
EVER.
Blue throws the bishop out as bait and Kasparov just takes it? Really?
Was he awake for this game? |
|
| Aug-30-11 | | Kittysafe: So many moves in that game make little sense...
Black - move 3, should've moved the knight out instead.
White - move 8, takes pawn, Black - does nothing, White castles?
White - move 17, sac bishop, Black takes the bait and loses Queen? Obviously GK was trying to lose this game. |
|
| Aug-30-11 | | Kittysafe: To those saying GK made mistakes, he did not make mistakes, he threw the game, it's obvious every step of the way. When you look at GK's other games, the man is a concise, precise master. This game is a complete mess, look at black move 11, B5... absolutely ridiculous move. No one would do that. The bishop sac take the bait? Come on, I wouldn't do that when I was 12. |
|
Aug-30-11
 | | TheFocus: Certainly GK threw this game.
He thought he would get a rematch with a bigger paycheck. |
|
| Sep-07-11 | | serenpidity.ejd: How embarassing to lose in only a few moves. To think that he is the world champion.
Paging Mr. 'Chess genius' you better explain to your fans how and why it happened.
Be quick or else I will switch loyalty to Karpov! |
|
Oct-07-11
 | | BigEasy1203: I'm just can't get on board with the conspiracy stuff when it comes to this match. I don't believe that IBM had the aid of a human GM, and I also don't believe that Kasparov threw this game. Kasparov had never played an opponent like this. By game 6, he was likely exhausted and just mentally worn down. He was also very frustrated and felt like the computer was playing moves that seemed too human. I think he had a mental lapse and played an incorrect move. Think about it -- at that point, he realized it was going to take magic just to pull out a draw, so he knew he was not going to beat the computer in the match. He played very uninspired from that point. |
|
| Oct-07-11 | | Oxnard: <BigEasy1203> Kasparov has proven time and time again that he doesn't understand how computers play chess. But he should know now in 2011 that computers ARE capable of playing positional chess. |
|
Nov-15-11
 | | whiteshark: Ljubomir Ljubojevic: < "I do not think that Kasparov's defeat with Deep Blue (Computer) is so vital. He lost to Deep Blue (Computer) because he entered into a fight against a very powerful machine which had not been used like this before. Chess is a mathematically limited game and that automatically gives an advantage to the computer. Quite simply, I think that the game of chess has been EXHAUSTED and that it is near its end." > |
|
| Nov-15-11 | | AnalyzeThis: The Petrov was probably the right choice for this game. |
|
| Nov-29-11 | | Penguincw: Too much pressure on black. |
|
Feb-04-12
 | | Mozart72: Opening ends with 9....fxe6. Middlegame starts with 10.Bg6+. Endgame begins with 15.... cxb5. |
|
Jul-11-12
 | | nowo: <Kittysafe> When you wrote <Blue throws the bishop out as bait and Kasparov just takes it? Really? Was he awake for this game?>
Bait? Wasn't 17...exf5 the best move in an already lost position? GK got beat - that's all. Even the greatest players lose occasionally - only not as often as other players... |
|
| Aug-07-12 | | Troller: <Mozart72: Opening ends with 9....fxe6. Middlegame starts with 10.Bg6+. Endgame begins with 15.... cxb5.> ?? |
|
Sep-30-12
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: GM Joel Benjamin, who was on the Deep Blue advisory team, gave a lecture Sunshine Coast (Australia) in 1998/9 on Kasparov v Deep Blue. He argued that Kasparov lost precisely because he had a stereotyped view on what an "anti-computer" system should be. But by doing so, he abandoned his own strengths, and the computer could cope. In this game, he thought that Kasparov counted on a "materialistic" computer regaining a  by  e1 and  xe6, which any human knows would lose by swapping off the vital attacking . Later on, he was counting on  f5 }earlier than actually played since this would also "win material" but exchange many attacking pieces. ut the computer opened lack's }-side first. |
|
| Mar-06-13 | | copablanco: Computer chess programs have no foresight.
Chess programers replaced that with an evaluation function which in computer jargon is called heuristics. That is why early chess programs were
mediocre giving higher priority in grabbing loose pieces or inadequately defended ones.
Foresight in more advance programs --is basically
more memory .A database complete with all textbook openings. An array of encyclopedic possibilities which is beyond what most humans could remember. |
|
| Mar-06-13 | | copablanco: A number of people are under the myth that a chess program like Houdini can evaluate better than a human chessmaster . That view is incorrect .It can evaluate faster, but not necessarily better. |
|
| May-11-13 | | offramp: May 11th, 1997. Sixteen years ago today. Kasparov lost 2-1, but since then we've seen Mickey Adams lose 5-0. But we've also seen Nakamura giving computers some major kick-boxing lessons. So it's not all one way traffic. |
|
May-11-13
 | | AylerKupp: <copablanco> I do not know what you mean by "foresight". Foresight is usually defined as the ability to look forward and the chess engine does this by creating a tree of possible moves at ever increasing depth, evaluating the position after each of those moves, and selecting as its next move the move whose line provides the highest evaluation. This is what most chess engines have done since their inception, as describe by Shannon in his 1949 paper, "Programming a Computer for Playing Chess". See http://vision.unipv.it/IA1/Programm.... So increasing "foresight" is strictly a matter of searching deeper in the available time to make a move, something that can be accomplished by more capable hardware (brute forth) or more sophisticated (computer jargon for "clever") algorithms, or both. And evaluation functions have also been around since the beginning, see Shannon's paper also. The reason that computers played so poorly initially was that their evaluation functions were very primitive, often consisting only of evaluating material, because of the low speed of computers at the time, as well as the limited searching possible for the same reason. Today's much more powerful computers can afford much more sophisticated evaluation functions as well as much deeper searches, so they play better. This is usually considered different than heuristics, although you could say that evaluation functions are a form of heuristics (computer jargon for "guesses"). More typical are the heuristics used to prune the search tree, such as first evaluating moves that have led to higher position evaluations in previous searches first. There is no guarantee that a heuristic will yield the best result, as contrast to an algorithm such as the minimax or alpha-beta pruning which will give the best result each time by a specific set of calculations. All this has nothing to do with memory. Computer chess playing algorithms are very efficient in their use of memory so very good play can be achieved with relatively little memory. Even the use of opening books does not require much memory; they are typically stored on disk and searched when needed, and the disk storage required is not all that great. The main exception is hash tables which allow the chess engine to reduce the number of position evaluations that it needs to do by storing the evaluation of previously encountered positions. If the same position occurs later in the search, it does not need to be re-evaluated. But you're right that a chess engine will not necessarily evaluate better than a human chessmaster, again depending on what you mean by "better". It can certainly evaluate faster and consider more move possibilities, and this allows it to often find moves that a human will not find because, with our limited evaluation capabilities, we are unable to look for them. And, of course, a lot depends on the quality of the chess engine's evaluation function. |
|
May-11-13
| | AylerKupp: <offramp> True, Nakamura has been able to give computer some major kick-boxing lessons by exploiting some well-known limitations of computer chess engines. But these have occurred at blitz when the computer did not have much time per move and so its ability to search was limited to very low ply. I doubt that Nakamura, or any other grandmaster or team of grandmasters could defeat today's more powerful engines at regular time controls running on reasonably powerful hardware. And, of course, the Nakamura vs. computer games that are publicized are usually the games that Nakamura (or any other grandmaster) wins. Kind of the "man bites dog" situation. Seldom seen are the 99% of games that Nakamura lost. And I picked that number arbitrarily, I don't know the actual percentage of games that Nakamura lost when playing against a computer, but it was the greater majority. |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 9.O-O
