It beat Kasparov in a six game match.
I don't know what to think about this. It wasn't declared 'world championship match' but the custom is that if you beat the champ in a match you're champion.
Furthermore, the machine refused to play after that. This would make Kasparov's regaining of his title similar to Karpov's ascension by dominating everyone after Fischer abidcated and Anderssen's regaining the championship by winning the third London tournament after Morphy retired.
My only hesitation is that six games is awfully short. But didn't e.g. Botvinnik refuse to play a couple of Russian Championship tiebreaks because they would amount to matches with the sitting world champion?
FWIW I think Kramnik is WC number 16 or 17 (depending on our assessment of Deeper Blue), I think there is no reason whatsoever not to count Anderssen as the first champion and Morphy as the second. It's more logical than the traditional beginning with Steinitz: the first truly international tournament of top masters was London 1851, organized by Staunton, and Anderssen won it. That makes him first champion in my book.
Originally posted by GambitAcceptedComputers can't be world champions in the human arena. The computers have their own championships. Any matches between human and computer are simply recreational.
It beat Kasparov in a six game match.
I don't know what to think about this. It wasn't declared 'world championship match' but the custom is that if you beat the champ in a match you're champion.
Furthermore, the machine refused to play after that. This would make Kasparov's regaining of his title similar to Karpov's ascension by dominating ever ...[text shortened]... organized by Staunton, and Anderssen won it. That makes him first champion in my book.
Well, that's one way to think about it, sure.
But sooner or later some champion is going to get beat by a company that wants to vigorously defend its interests and which will promote its victorious champion as WC.
So I think the sitting world champion should probably refuse to play computer matches. But then that's where a lot of the money is...
Outside of the 'computers can't be WC' argument what reasons pro and con (like historical examples or reasoned arguments) could be assembled for or against Kasparov's short match v. DrB counting as a title loss?
Originally posted by GambitAcceptedThink about this: Bill Gates puts an embargo against interbrand computer chess playing, but one of his estranged computers plays anyway for a large prize and a warrant is placed against it. He then flees to Japan and makes anti-Bill gates statements. He is caught traveling around the world and brought back and blah blah blah.
Well, that's one way to think about it, sure.
But sooner or later some champion is going to get beat by a company that wants to vigorously defend its interests and which will promote its victorious champion as WC.
So I think the sitting world champion should probably refuse to play computer matches. But then that's where a lot of the money is.. ...[text shortened]... could be assembled for or against Kasparov's short match v. DrB counting as a title loss?
No. It was not a title match, pluss a program cannot play for the title. There seems the be a contention that some GMs were on the Deep Blue team. If so they were "pushing" a buttton to get Deep Blue to stop analyzing a bad line of play. Kasparov think that Deep Blue had some GM help. Did IBM cheat?