|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-10-05 | | aw1988: At this point in the match Kasparov just couldn't do it anymore. It reminds me of Capablanca's losing to I believe Verlinsky after giving his simul in Moscow 1925. |
|
| Dec-15-05 | | seeminor: This is either the most miserable capitulation in top level chess history, or the most blatant cheque grab in chess history. either way this is a truly shocking game |
|
| Jan-15-06 | | EnglishOpeningc4: Any comments about the Pepsi machine attacking Kasparov in Game Over, i thought this was very funny and seemed to me like an attack on Pepsi not IBM |
|
| Jan-15-06 | | EnglishOpeningc4: By the By
_g _ k
<H A L >
<I B M >
_j c n
_k d o
HAL=IBM this was a subliminal message in 2001 a space odessy |
|
| Jan-15-06 | | morpstau: RookFile: You guys understand that if IBM gets annoyed enough, they could build a machine at least 32 times more powerful then Deep Blue, in a matter of weeks, don't you? This is based on the speed at which computer processing doubles. THIS COMMENT IS ABSURD AND IS NOT FACTUAL AND ILLFOUNDED> |
|
| Feb-07-06 | | Cogano: Hello Miss <dhotts> and I sincerely hope this finds you well. Not to be impertinent, but are you Ms. Judit Polgar? You sure do like her. I don't
mean anyone any disrespect by that question -- just perchance you're not her and she learns of my post, so that neither of you will take offence! Thank you most kindly for your anticipated tolerance, consideration and understanding. Take very good care
and have yourself a most joyous day, every day! |
|
| Feb-07-06 | | Jim Bartle: What a great theory!! Kasparov bought up IBM stock, lost the match spectaculary, then cleaned up when the stock shot upward! Garry is such a devious guy. |
|
| Feb-07-06 | | thschess: Of course he bought stock for the money... its not like he gets paid millions in appearance fees and tournament winnings. Oh wait... |
|
| Mar-06-06 | | DeepBlade: If you link like 3000 multiproccesors, you need more sophisticated evaluation engine. Uncontrolled power isnt power. Of course it would be great if Kasparov won all the games, proving IBM wrong. |
|
| Mar-06-06 | | Stonewaller2: Deep Blue "cheated" in the sense that it was able to consult "reference works," that is, its hardwired opening book, and an "analysis board," that is, its algorithms for generating and numerically rating chess positions, during the game. If GM Kasparov had been given the same advantages as Deep Blue during their match he would have been able to see that 7. ... h6 was clearly inferior and would never have played it. I'll back any top GM against any machine, make it as powerful as you like, as long as the GM has access to the ECO and other references and a side board for analysis -- just as the machine "virtually" does. Throw in the services of a couple top players as seconds, like the ones who refined Deep Blue's position evaluations, and the GM wins in a walk. |
|
Mar-06-06
 | | Eric Schiller: <Stonewaller> My objection is not to the lookup or virtual boards, but to the fact that the machines using human-crafted opening books. Joel Benjamin defeated Kasparov in this match. If computer program had to write their own opening books, then Man vs. Machine might have some meaning. Now it is basically a corporation vs. man. No Grandmaster has ever been beaten by a program that didn't use human opening books. The machines rely on humans to defeat humans, and the claim that a machine won is basically fraudulent. |
|
| Mar-06-06 | | Stonewaller2: <No Grandmaster has ever been beaten by a program that didn't use human opening books.> And neither have I, to my knowledge. ;) Deep Blue "beat" GM Kasparov in the same sense that The Turk "beat" his human opponents. There was at least one man in -- or behind -- the machine. |
|
| Mar-06-06 | | LPeristy: In the documentary "Game Over", someone made the claim that Deep Blue wasn't even out of its opening book when Kasparov resigned. Can someone confirm or deny this statement? |
|
Mar-06-06
 | | Sneaky: <Eric Schiller> I understand your point, but suppose instead of having a Joel Benjamin who carefully crafts a repertoire just perfect for the occasion, the computer's opening book was something like this site's Opening Explorer, and it would just pick the move most frequently played by humans in that position. You might say, "then the machine is just copying the humans"--true, but aren't the humans also copying the humans? If you don't allow computers to see the history of chess at all, then you're not making them play on a level playing field, but rather handicapping them, because grandmasters are big copycats themselves. |
|
Mar-06-06
| | Eric Schiller: <sneaky> I'd go further than that. I'd let the computer build its own opening books by using databases and evaluating positions, then constructing its optimal tree. The only requirement is that there be no human intervention. The ability to correctly assess positions will be critial. |
|
| Apr-07-06 | | DeepBlade: <Eric Schiller> So you would let the engine make its own opening-repertoire, interresting point! In my opinion computers are stupid things. They need human intervention to do things, and they need us to input something. Without us they are a piece of junk, they are like a virus.As Fisher would say: The computer is a big fat jew. It would be great if we told the computer the rules of chess, and the way pieces move, so he could make alogrithms (simulated thoughts) of its own! Too bad it cant because it cant think.Engines would be real chess engines if a programmer makes a evaluation system for the opening (developing and ♔ safety), middlegame(determine the character/weakness of the game, use the things to exploit it), and endgame. Nowadays we have huge opening databases, and giant endgame databases, programmed in a computer. So we get a good shot at them in the middlegame, and it would be a lot better if we got 3 chances to beat them instead of 1! You can discuss the same computer talk at X3D Fritz (Computer) |
|
| Apr-10-06 | | jackmandoo: I think that computers like Deep Blue, Hydra and Fritz, will only make current GM's stronger, as long as humans are still able to compete. Even a draw is an accomplishment. We shouldn't be critizing the computers for using their opening databases and "analysis board", previously they have used them and previously we have beat them. Now they have overcome and are on par with us. I think that "The Termanator" can teach us valuable lessons when we think about machines. Even more so when we think about machines with guns. I think that the Deep Blue team was very aware of that movie when developed their software.That's just my feelings. |
|
| Apr-10-06 | | Four Corners: I believe that humans are too timid around computers, a psychological problem. Not that it is to be underestimated and scoffed at. And yes, it is quite possible that the invention of the chess computer has strengthened the players at large. |
|
Apr-29-06
 | | marcusantoinerome: Anyone who wants a slightly different (and pragmatic) view of the inherehent "cheating" in human-computer chess contests should read Patrick Wolff's article on this match in New In Chess 1997/3. He asks the question, What constitutes a "fair" match? (i.e., how do you define "cheating"). Wolff's answer is "Any match is fair so long as both sides agree to the terms without being coerced." He goes on to state that the terms of this match were not necesarily designed to "test the abilities of human and computer to play chess." Basically, if Kasparov didn't like the terms (the fact that Deep Blue had an openings database hardwired) he shouldn't have agreed to the match. This, of course, will not settle the issue, but does make for some interesting thoughts. |
|
| Apr-29-06 | | weisyschwarz: What if Kasparov had opening books at his availability for the games? Would that be allowable? Would it have made a difference? |
|
| May-24-06 | | Karpova: <What if Kasparov had opening books at his availability for the games? Would that be allowable? Would it have made a difference?> Wouldn't have made a difference. The (beginner's) mistake occurred on move 7 (7...h6?? is a well-known lemon and even casual computers knew the answer). |
|
| Jun-25-06 | | sixfeetunder: At that moment 8.Nxe6! must have been a bolt out of the deep blue for Kasparov. |
|
Jun-25-06
| | Sneaky: <8.Nxe6! must have been a bolt out of the deep blue> Actually, that sacrifice is very well known to theory, which is why many people say that Kasparov playing into this line was very odd. Garry surely knew about Leko vs G Bakhtadze, 1995 from a few years earlier (1-0 in 22 moves), and probably also knew about DeFirmian vs J Thinnsen, 1988 (1-0 in 28 moves). I believe Kasparov was on the staff for Batsford when they published their opening tome "BCO" that included this variation. Perhaps Kasparov reasoned as follows: it's unlikely that Benjamin (et al) programmed Deep Blue specifically to play the Nxe6 move, and if they didn't, then that's a move that a computer would be unlikely to appreciate. Moreover, without that move the entire variation favors Black. |
|
| Jun-25-06 | | WMD: Yes, very odd. <wink> |
|
| Jun-26-06 | | sixfeetunder: Well to be more precise, I meant it was a bolt out of the deep blue at that perticular moment.By the way since I myself play Nd7 variation I know that sacrifice. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 9.O-O