When reading about the second Kasparov vs Deep Blue series, I have heard that Kasparov was expecting a gentleman's game, however Deep Blue did not play this way. I am curious as to what exactly he means by a gentleman's game. Sorry for my ignorance, it's just something I have been wondering for a long time. Is there some etiquette that grandmasters follow which dictates what moves would be considered "gentleman's" moves, and what moves wouldn't?
Originally posted by mjordan2ndHumans are sore losers.
When reading about the second Kasparov vs Deep Blue series, I have heard that Kasparov was expecting a gentleman's game, however Deep Blue did not play this way. I am curious as to what exactly he means by a gentleman's game. Sorry for my ignorance, it's just something I have been wondering for a long time. Is there some etiquette that grandmasters follow ...[text shortened]... ich dictates what moves would be considered "gentleman's" moves, and what moves wouldn't?
Getting back to the question (although the side-track was funny)
From what I remember Kasparov's two main gripes were:
1) The Deep Blue team refused to provide him with Deep Blue's thinking lines. He claimed that this validated his suspiciions that some of the moves were "too human" and that DB had had help to select the right move.
2) The Deep Blue team were able to modify DB's programming AFTER the start of the match series. The didnt do that for the first match.
Originally posted by TenguThis is pretty much the gripe.
Getting back to the question (although the side-track was funny)
From what I remember Kasparov's two main gripes were:
1) The Deep Blue team refused to provide him with Deep Blue's thinking lines. He claimed that this validated his suspiciions that some of the moves were "too human" and that DB had had help to select the right move.
2) The Deep Blue t ...[text shortened]... B's programming AFTER the start of the match series. The didnt do that for the first match.
GK's assertion is that he didn't lose to a computer; he lost to...
- a supercomputer, plus...
- a team of on-site programmers with the ability to communicate with the machine and adjust on the fly, plus...
- a team of Grandmaster analysts allowed to sit in a sealed room, combine their thought processes, talk situations through, use an analysis board, AND have supercomputer-level calculation at hand to boost their decision making, plus...
- a corporation determined to see him lose to their machine no matter how much money they had to throw at the project, the support team, or the rulebook.
IBM destroyed the evidence, and then their stock went up sharply.
You be the judge.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Deep Blue's log files, which shows its 'thinking' in each game is published on IBM's website:-
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c.html
It all looks like gobblygook to me, but at least IBM have produced the log files that Kasparov asked for. Unfortunately they didn't provide them during the match, despite promising to do so beforehand.
I think the match was stacked in IMB/Deep Blue's favour from the beginning.
They spent a fortune building a machine for the sole purpose of defeating Kasparov. They had access to all of Kasparov's games and teams of grandmasters went through them looking for weaknesses in his play. But Kasparov was not allowed to see any of Deep Blue's games! The only preparation he could do was to study the 6 games from the previous match. However for the second match Deep Blue was completely rebuilt and made massively stronger - so effectively he was playing a different machine.
IBM acted as both the match sponsors and one of its participants, housing the venue, determining the playing conditions and paying for the supposedly neutral officials.
I also think it's wrong that the Deep Blue programmers were able to adjust its playing style and openings from game to game. Kasparov based his entire match strategy on his success in the first game, but Deep Blue was modified to ensure that in its remaining games it played completely differently.
However I don't believe the Deep Blue team actually cheated by interfering with the machine's moves whilst the games were in progress. The machine was good enough to win on its own, especially against a psyched out and demoralised opponent. Kasparov needn't have bothered turning up for the last game - he was already psychologically defeated.
Originally posted by David TebbDeep Blue's win was worth hundreds of millions of online marketing for IBM. As usual, when the corporate stakes are so high, they played dirty, declaring that all of Deep Blue's practice/learning games were private, and so they didn't have to show them to GK. Tebb is right, they completely psyched Kasparov out of it, which was a bit out of order, IMO.
Deep Blue's log files, which shows it's 'thinking' in each game is published on IBM's website:-
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c.html
It all looks like gobblygook to me, but at least IMB have produced the log files that Kasparov asked for. Unfortunately they didn't provide them during the match, despite promising to do so beforehand ...[text shortened]... bothered turning up for the last game - he was already psychologically defeated.
D
Originally posted by mjordan2ndI have read about some of the tournament tricks the GMs have done. they are not playing on even terms like they do in sports like the NFL. When one team's phone goes out the ref makes the other team stop using their phone. The tricks some have done are most unsportsmanlike. Karpov is such a strong GM he had a person stare at Korchnoi to bother him. Guess he could not beat him with his Queen. Kasparov and Karpov were kicking each other under the table. Only Kasparov can truely answer that question. As for etiquette? The players cheat. Kasparov droped a man and picked it up and made the move to another square. Some players have taken moves back. I guess to play fair and square depends more on if the tournamet directer is watching or not. Not all GMs are cheats. I doubt Lasker, Schlechter, Stientz, Spassky, Bronstein and Fischer cheated at the board.
When reading about the second Kasparov vs Deep Blue series, I have heard that Kasparov was expecting a gentleman's game, however Deep Blue did not play this way. I am curious as to what exactly he means by a gentleman's game. Sorry for my ignorance, it's just something I have been wondering for a long time. Is there some etiquette that grandmasters follow ...[text shortened]... ich dictates what moves would be considered "gentleman's" moves, and what moves wouldn't?
Indeed, Kasparov has a natural disadvantage of being human,
which means he could get tired, not play his best, etc.
all of which a machine does not have to deal with.
Also, I think normal time controls are too the advantage of computers, simply because a super-computer could do so much more in a minute than a human possibly could.
^ game 4 of the match had Kasparov draw a technically won game because of time troubles.
^ and Game 2, Kasparov made a very human error, he gave up...
he resigned a drawn game
a Quote from [ http://www.cs.vu.nl/~aske/db.html ]
"It didn't take long before the Internet chess-playing community began to analyze the game and discovered a shocking surprise: Kasparov had resigned in a drawn position. After being completely out-played for the entire game, and with imminent defeat on the horizon, Kasparov resigned the game rather than drag out the humiliation. But Deep Blue had made a critical error, allowing Kasparov a perpetual check. The analysis is quite deep and extends slightly beyond Deep Blue's search horizon. And, apparently, also Kasparov's. Kasparov's team, which included Grandmaster Yuri Dokhoian and Frederic Friedel, were faced with the delicate task of revealing the news to Kasparov. They waited until lunch the next day, after he had had a nice glass of wine to drink. After they revealed the hidden drawing resource, Kasparov sunk into deep thought (no pun intended) for five minutes before he conceded that he had missed a draw. He later claimed that this was the first time he had resigned a drawn position.
Much has been made of Kasparov's missed opportunity. However, this distracts the discussion from the real issue: Deep Blue played a magnificent game. Who cares if there was a minor flaw in the game? Most classic games of chess contain many flaws. Perfect chess is still an elusive goal, even for Kasparov and Deep Blue."
and as for the final game 6, its better left unmentioned.
Suspicion of foul play is raised even further when Kasparov's demand for a rematch was declined and Deep blue goes into retirement, and dismantled...
there is a documentry film on this subject, "game over".
[see: - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379296/ ]
I do think the critisims were listened too however, In the Krammik deep fritz match, Krammik was given access to the things Kasparov was not.
Originally posted by gambit3NFL, truly the pinnacle of fair play and sportsmanship.
I have read about some of the tournament tricks the GMs have done. they are not playing on even terms like they do in sports like the NFL. When one team's phone goes out the ref makes the other team stop using their phone. The tricks some have done are most unsportsmanlike. Karpov is such a strong GM he had a person stare at Korchnoi to bother him. Guess he ...[text shortened]... eats. I doubt Lasker, Schlechter, Stientz, Spassky, Bronstein and Fischer cheated at the board.