|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-17-05 | | Knight13: I hate the fact that IBM didn't accept the re-match Kasparov requested after the second match, 1997. |
|
| Jun-17-05 | | WMD: I thought it was called Deeper Blue for the 1997 match. |
|
| Jun-17-05 | | Rocafella: <Knight13> I agree. I think that if IBM had actually created the monster of a machine that they claimed, they would have been happy to re-pit it against Kasparov and prove it wasn't a fluke! |
|
| Jun-17-05 | | aw1988: Uh, player of the day? |
|
| Jun-17-05 | | Clutch: Deep Blue played some horrendous chess, what do you expect, it was programmed by a bunch of nerds who clearly had a scant disregard for personal hygiene!!! |
|
| Jun-17-05 | | Hesam7: Deep Blue player of day! Nice player, after defeating the WC and having no other goal to aretired! And by the way it is innocent until proven guilty. the logs are published around 2000. More than 5 years ago. |
|
| Jun-18-05 | | SnoopDogg: I just had an interesting talk with Mig Greengard a few minutes ago(he was in Game Over) and had some interesting comments that were not said in the movie. After two unrated blitz games (he beat me on the first time because I hung a rook...stupid premove never works) anyways I said," "thxs for the games, you were great in game over."
Mig: Heh
Mig: 8 hours of interview and 2 minutes in the movie. "so I suppose you agree with DB cheating right?"
Mig: No, I don't think DB cheated.
"Do you think Hydra will use HI?"
"Human Intervention?"
Mig: No
Mig: There's not a lot at stake.
Mig: Against Deep Blue you could arguably make that case. That was basically the whole conversation since he played more bullet while I was too mad over my poor play against him to do anything. Here's the first bullet game for anyone interested. Don't try to annotate it both sides used premove badly :)) [Event "Friendly Game, 1m + 0s"]
[Site "Main Playing Hall"]
[Date "2005.06.17"]
[Round "?"]
[White ""]
[Black "Mig"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A56"]
[WhiteElo ""]
[BlackElo "2234"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "2005.02.05"]
[TimeControl "60"]
1. d4 1 Nf6 1 2. c4 0 c5 0 3. Nc3 0 cxd4 1 4. Qxd4 1 Nc6 0 5.
Qd1 1 g6 0 6. Nf3 1 Bg7 0 7. g3 1 O-O 0 8. Bg2 0 d6 0 9. O-O 1
Be6 0 10. Nd5 2 Bxd5 3 11. cxd5 1 Nb4 1 12. Bd2 7 Nbxd5 2 13.
Qb3 1 Qb6 4 14. Qxb6 2 Nxb6 2 15. Rfc1 2 Rac8 2 16. Bc3 2 e6 2
17. Nd4 1 d5 1 18. Nb5 2 a6 3 19. Nd6 1 Rc7 1 20. e4 3 dxe4 1
21. Nxe4 2 Nxe4 1 22. Bxe4 0 Bxc3 1 23. Rxc3 1 Rxc3 1 24. bxc3 0
Nd5 1 25. c4 1 f5 3 26. cxd5 1 fxe4 1 27. dxe6 0 Re8 1 28. Rb1 2
Re7 1 29. Rxb7 0 Rxb7 resigns (Lag: Av=1.48s, max=11.9s) 2
0-1
|
|
| Jun-20-05 | | vampiero: do me a favor and explain the ideas on how deep blue cheated cuase i dont know the story and havn't bought "Game OVer" |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | Clutch: what a waste of screen space |
|
| Jun-29-05 | | square dance: deep blue had a part on futurama last night. |
|
Aug-13-05
 | | BishopBerkeley: [Duplicate post from the Garry Kasparov message board]: Natan Sharansky, Chess Master?
I had no idea Natan Sharansky is an accomplished Chess player. from "Sharansky is latest victim of Deep Blue's chess skills" Friday June 6, 1997
"...Sharansky, who says he perfected his chess skills while a prisoner-of-conscience in the Soviet Union, is no stranger to challenging chess matches. "Last year he beat Kasparov during a chess match in Israel. Kasparov was playing 25 games simultaneously at the time...." http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0... From Time Magazine,
Tuesday, Apr. 26, 2005
"Did Chess Make Him Crazy?"
By [Chess enthusiast] CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
"...[Chess] certainly has its pantheon of upstanding citizens. While ambassador to France, Benjamin Franklin preferred to eschew the Paris opera for chess at the Cafe de la Regence. (Excellent choice.) Napoleon played, although to judge by one of his games, a diagrammed and illustrated copy of which hangs in my office, he was a far better general. Nabokov was a fine player and renowned composer of chess problems. And the sanest man I know, Natan Sharansky, is a chess master who once played Garry Kasparov to a draw and defeats me with distressing ease..." http://www.time.com/time/columnist/... From http://www.chesscenter.com/newsoftw... :
"... ChessBase Magazine 77 has two multimedia reports. Ilya Tsesarsky followed the Israeli League with his camera and has given us his video impressions. Minister Nathan Sharansky often visits the event and is to be seen in some of the pictures, Boris Avrukh explains how he was able to draw his game against Kasparov...." I wonder if anyone has the score of this game or the Deep Blue (Computer) games? All quite interesting...
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|
|
| Aug-25-05 | | RookFile: Part of me wishes that IBM would get
annoyed enough to build another Deep Blue. Problem with that is, it would be 5 to 10 times more powerful than the machine that beat Kasparov. Such
a machine might make us all switch to backgammon. |
|
Aug-25-05
| | BishopBerkeley: <RookFile> With the plummeting cost of supercomputing, "Deep Blue II" is not at all unthinkable (though it may not be needed). Perhaps you heard about Virginia Tech's "System X", a supercomputer system that is now ranked as the 14th fastest system on earth (though I believe it was as high as 7th at one time): http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.... This system was originally assembled for $5.2 million (US), a tiny fraction of what supercomputers have traditionally cost. (It just underwent an upgrade for a modest $640K (US), and it is now running at 12.25 teraflops (12.25 trillion floating-point operations per second)): http://www.sciencedaily.com/release... I don't know what the peak performance of Deep Blue (Computer) was, but I'm sure it was well shy of this benchmark! (The fastest supercomputer on earth in 1996, a Hitachi CP-PACS/2048 system at the Center for Computational Physics, (Univ of Tsukuba) in Japan, ran at 0.3682 teraflops, which is about 3% of the speed of Virginia Tech's "System X": http://www.top500.org/lists/lists.p... ) My suspicion is that the Deep Blue Chess algorithm was not particularly impressive by the standards of today's best Chess programs: but it had the advantage of massive parallel processing power. We might say that, relative to the strongest programs of the present time, Deep Blue was "hardware driven". But now we have extremely strong algorithms running with 64-bit computer hardware that is fast-approaching supercomputer speed. I suspect that the recent blow-out victories of Hydra (Computer) ( http://www.hydrachess.com/main.cfm?... ) and newly-proclaimed World Computer Chess Champion "Zappa" ( http://www.ru.is/wccc05/default.asp... ) & ( http://volker-pittlik.name/zappa/za... ) were more the result of the sophisticated implementation of 64-bit computer architecture than they were of any quantum jump in the quality of the Chess algorithms involved. So, as the software improves somewhat linearly, the hardware gets cheaper geometrically! This augurs well for the quality of computer Chess, but ill for the relative strength of human players! (Should we be sad about this? Not at all, in my opinion! I explain my reasons for non-sadness over on the Shredder (Computer) board). Having said all this, if I were a bettin' man, I'd put my money on Hydra (Computer) or Zappa over Deep Blue (Computer) if they were able to compete under standard tournament conditions. (But I'm not sure which I'd bet on if they were to go up against one another!!!) (: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
P.S. If you're interested, you can always keep track of the world's fastest supercomputers at any given time at this site: http://www.top500.org/
|
|
Aug-25-05
 | | Sneaky: <System X> It's a truckload of Apple Macintoshes wired together! |
|
Aug-25-05
| | BishopBerkeley: <Sneaky> Exactly! I recall reading an interview with one of the program engineers. "What was the hardest part of the implementation of System X," he was asked. "Cutting all the PowerMac G5s out of their boxes," he replied!!! (: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|
|
Aug-25-05
| | BishopBerkeley: P.S. The System X homepage:
http://www.tcf.vt.edu/systemX.html
Supercomputing on a shoestring budget!
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|
|
Aug-25-05
| | BishopBerkeley: Amusing: from the recent World Computer Chess Championship: "In terms of playing strength (Elo rating), this is possibly the strongest chess tournament ever held in Iceland...." What would new-Icelander Robert James Fischer have to say about that?! Source:
http://www.ru.is/wccc05/Bulletins/b...
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|
|
| Aug-25-05 | | csmath: It is hard to imagine anybody being able to pump so much money (even if "just" a couple of millions :-)) for the purpose of playing chess but these Iceland computers/programs, in particularly Zappa, Fruit, Shredder, and Junior would beat any elite player today. As a matter of fact I have a chance to see how regular GMs get beaten like horses on a daily routine in blitzes against computer players. The level of play of computers is currently way above any elite GM can do. The programs have improved, not just hardware. Fritzes that played against Kramnik and Kasparov are inferior. |
|
| Aug-25-05 | | csmath: Look at some of the games played there. Zappa in particular. Not only that the program played masterpieces like the game against Junior or Shredder but had not committed a single blunder or even a small error of any sort. Which GM can play that way? |
|
Aug-25-05
| | BishopBerkeley: <csmath> Like this nifty game that you posted (and thanks for posting it!) Four-time World Computer Chess Champion
and current World Speed Champion Shredder (Computer) ( http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/wcc... ), playing White, gets Zappa'd by Black!! [Event "World Computer Chess Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2005.08.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Shredder(C)"]
[Black "Zappa(C)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Opening "Sicilian: dragon, Yugoslav attack, Rauser variation"] [ECO "B76"]
[NIC "SI.17"]
[Time "06:04:22"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. O-O-O d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Nxd5 cxd5 13. Bh6 Qc7 14. Bxg7 Kxg7 15. h4 h5 16. Re1 Rb8 17. g4 hxg4 18. h5 Qb6 19. c3 Rh8 20. fxg4 Bxg4 21. h6+ Kf8 22. b3 Rc8 23. Kb2 d4 24. c4 Bf5 25. Bd3 Bxd3 26. Qxd3 Qd6 27. Qd2 Rh7 28. Qg5 f5 29. Ref1 Rc5 30. Qg2 Kf7 31. Rf2 Qf6 32. Rff1 a5 33. Qa8 g5 34. Kc2 Re5 35. Kc1 g4 36. Kd1 Rh8 37. Qg2 d3 38. Qf2 a4 39. Qh4 Re2 40. Qxf6+ exf6 41. b4 Rxa2 Black wins 0-1 (: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|
|
| Aug-25-05 | | csmath: Yes, I analized the game, I thought Shredder had a good game up until the move 16. I think 16. Re1?! was a crucial positional error, after Rb8-Qb6 black had established a tempo to get the f-pawn and the rest of the game was an avalanche black created with his central pawns, also bringing rook to the 5th rank (this is a recognizable Zappa move to me, as I have played Zappa in the past). After that Shredder was positionally lost, and that is without committing any grave error. |
|
| Aug-25-05 | | csmath: Some people have commented during the game that 13. Bh6 might have been a problematic move and that white has nothing from that. It is a theoretical move and this might be true. I would still think 16 Re1 was the problem but I wouldn't play 13. Bh6 either. Sometimes these computers invalidate the whole opening book lines, they are this good. Hydra had only 10-move opening book against Adams, the authors didn't believe there is anything else safe to play further by the book, they believe their program can outperform any book line after the move 10. Interesting. |
|
Aug-25-05
| | BishopBerkeley: <csmath> You're familiar with Hydra (Computer) and Zappa. Of course, it's a hard call to make when programs are playing at this level, but which would you expect to win if they were going up against one another in standard tournament conditions? Thanks in advance!
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
P.S. For those of you who didn't follow the 13th World Computer Championship in Iceland, Zappa won the contest with 10 wins, 1 draw, and NO LOSSES (!!!) against a field that included former World Computer Chess Champions Shredder (Computer) , Junior (Computer) , and other strong programs (like "Fruit", which I, as a vegetarian, was pulling for). |
|
| Aug-25-05 | | csmath: Interesting that in the last round Shredder trapped Junior in a computer analysis of the opening line and after getting a pawn in a sharp opening combination just simply executed the advantage. There is no chance in the hell to beat a computer that has accomplished opening advantage. |
|
| Aug-25-05 | | csmath: I would expect Hydra to beat Zappa, though Zappa has better opening book. I think Hydra has decidably better hardware. It is a tough call. I have played Zappa and I have positive score against Zappa (+2, =3). Some of my colleagues have played (and beat) Hydra but I know it is nearly impossible to do that without opening analysis. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 10 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
