Very interesting. I knew very little about the details surrounding that match. But it would seem that IBM used some rather underhand tactics off the board, never mind the mysteries on it (game 2):
e.g. Shutting K.'s coach out of his changing room;
refusing to hand over the logs after mystery game 2 (a fair request, despite what the compunerd on the programme claimed);
and keeping all previous games with Grandmaters "private", i.e. not allowing K. to have any previous knowledge of the computer's performance, whilst every game K. had ever played, we can assume, had been put through the computer's works.
Not very fair, really. There was the whiff of sacrificial lamb in the programme. Yankee dollar... the currency at the root the evil.
All very dodgy.
(I reckon they might even have had Derren Brown hiding in the cabinet underneath the Turkish bloke's torso, but maybe I just watched too much telly tonight)
Anyway, very interesting and enjoyable stuff.
What do you all think?
SJEG
Originally posted by sjeghttp://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm
Very interesting. I knew very little about the details surrounding that match. But it would seem that IBM used some rather underhand tactics off the board, never mind the mysteries on it (game 2):
e.g. Shutting K.'s coach out of his changing room;
refusing to hand over the logs after mystery game 2 (a fair request, despite what the compunerd on the prog ...[text shortened]... tonight)
Anyway, very interesting and enjoyable stuff.
What do you all think?
SJEG
The logs were actually published in March 2000 at the I.B.M. website.
The review gives me all the information I need to know on the movie. While entertaining it's flawed and sensationalist.
Originally posted by XanthosNZVery interesting... so the logs were published three years later, and I suppose they checked out ok?
http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm
The logs were actually published in March 2000 at the I.B.M. website.
The review gives me all the information I need to know on the movie. While entertaining it's flawed and sensationalist.
But why not reveal them there and then? Was there something to hide, or were they just playing mind games?
Either way, it's pretty dodgy stuff.
Originally posted by sjegPerhaps they didn't want to reveal exactly how their computer calculated.
Very interesting... so the logs were published three years later, and I suppose they checked out ok?
But why not reveal them there and then? Was there something to hide, or were they just playing mind games?
Either way, it's pretty dodgy stuff.
For example here is the cleaned up log for the move in question:
---------------------------------------
--> 37. Be4 <-- 3/37:56
---------------------------------------
hash guess Rc8b8,Guessing Rcb8
8(4) #[g3](30)[g3](30) 30^ T=1
pg2g3 Qe8d8 kg1g2 Ra8a2r ra1a2R Bd6c7 qf2a7 Bc7b6 qa7a6 Qd8d7
8(6) #[g3](32)####################################### 32 T=6
pg2g3 Qe8d8 kg1g2 Ra8a2r ra1a2R Bd6c7 qf2a7 Bc7b6 qa7a6 Qd8d7
9(6) #[g3](34)####################################### 34 T=14
pg2g3 Qe8d8 kg1g2 Ra8a2r ra1a2R Bd6c7 qf2a7 Bc7b6 qa7a6
10(6) #[g3](35)####################################### 35 T=55
pg2g3 Ra8a2r qf2a2R Bd6c7 kg1g2 Qe8f8 qa2a7 Qf8d8 qa7a6 Qd8d5p be4d5Q Kg8h7 qa6f6P
11(6) #[g3](37)####################################[Kh2](38)### 38 T=166
kg1h2 Ra8a2r ra1a2R Qe8d7 ra2a7 Rb8b7 ra7a6 Qd7d8 ph3h4 Bd6b4p
12(6) #[Kh2](37)####################################### 37 T=359
kg1h2 Ra8a2r ra1a2R Qe8d7 ra2a7 Qd7d8 ra7a6 Kg8h8 pg2g3 Rb8a8 ra6a8R
13(6)<ch> 'ra2'
This means pretty much nothing to me. But to someone in the know it may give vital clues to the way Deep Blue analysed positions.