What I dont get is how Kasparov got absolutely demolished in a couple of games while doing well in the others.
I would've thought that if DB can beat Kaspa in one game then the computer would win them all.
It is prolly just human nature.
Any ideas?
Originally posted by karoly aczel The first time a computer beat a human. (3.5-2.5)
What I dont get is how Kasparov got absolutely demolished in a couple of games while doing well in the others.
I would've thought that if DB can beat Kaspa in one game then the computer would win them all.
It is prolly just human nature.
Any ideas?
The Deep Blue match was not at all the first time a computer beat a human being. It had happened quite a few times before. An entire tournament (set of tournaments actually) was played between humans and machines in the early nineties that catalogued many human losses in matches. In the end, the machines won the entire swiss styled tournament. The tournament was held at the Hague in the Netherlands (a very important chess landmark might I add) and was called the Aegon tournament. Deep Thought was also another machine that had a top performance and beat many humans on its way to a great finish (after the Aegon but before Deep Blue). Finally - every self respecting chess conspiracy theorist knows that Deep Blue was aided by Karpov to topple Kasparov.
Originally posted by PhySiQ The Deep Blue match was not at all the first time a computer beat a human being. It had happened quite a few times before. An entire tournament (set of tournaments actually) was played between humans and machines in the early nineties that catalogued many human losses in matches. In the end, the machines won the entire swiss styled tournament. The tournam ...[text shortened]... ting chess conspiracy theorist knows that Deep Blue was aided by Karpov to topple Kasparov.
Q
Still, why did not Deep Blue flog Kasparov in every match?
Maybe it was the first time a computer beat a world champ(?)
Originally posted by PhySiQ The Deep Blue match was not at all the first time a computer beat a human being. It had happened quite a few times before. An entire tournament (set of tournaments actually) was played between humans and machines in the early nineties that catalogued many human losses in matches. In the end, the machines won the entire swiss styled tournament. The tournam ...[text shortened]... ting chess conspiracy theorist knows that Deep Blue was aided by Karpov to topple Kasparov.
Q
I dont think it was Karpov specifically, although i could be wrong, but other GMs like
Joel Benjamin.
Originally posted by karoly aczel I would've thought that if DB can beat Kaspa in one game then the computer would win them all.
Another thing to consider is that computers don't play all middlegames equally well. So depending on the opening you may, for example, see the computer play well in an open position. Or alternatively, it may fail to find a decent plan (in a manner of speaking) in a more closed position. So both Kasparov's and the computer's ability can vary between games.
Originally posted by roma45 i heard it was 4 computors and 30 gm to beat him.
there is an interesting documentary on it, Kaspers clearly thinks that there was a
conspiracy, his reason being in that one of the games, he offered a pawn for activity
and normally a computer would take the material, instead it played positionally. I dont
know who were involved but i know Joel Benjamin was one of them.
I have The Times, "Brains in Bahrain", about Kramnik's match with Deep Fritz.
Part of the intro discusses the flaws in the Karparov match:
- IBM could reprogram between games (forget beating each time with the same sequence)
- Kasparov had no access to Deep Blue's previous games
- no adjournments.
With two games in 2 days, and then a day's break, before the next 2, the schedule was certainly not a help, and probably more of a problem to a human than to the machine (unless anyone thinks that IBM could not build a machine to run continuously ;-) )
Originally posted by karoly aczel The first time a computer beat a human. (3.5-2.5)
What I dont get is how Kasparov got absolutely demolished in a couple of games while doing well in the others.
I would've thought that if DB can beat Kaspa in one game then the computer would win them all.
It is prolly just human nature.
Any ideas?
I'd think just the opposite -- a good human can eventually find a machine's weak areas. There was an on-line playing machine called Thinking Machine that I eventually found a winning opening against. It didn't learn from its losses or try anything else than the moves it scored highest.
Originally posted by JS357 I'd think just the opposite -- a good human can eventually find a machine's weak areas. There was an on-line playing machine called Thinking Machine that I eventually found a winning opening against. It didn't learn from its losses or try anything else than the moves it scored highest.
The problem is, as a previous commenter noted, Deep Blue was reprogrammed after every game. Any flaws discovered after one game would be quickly repaired for the next one. Kasparov was playing a match with a different opponent each game.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie there is an interesting documentary on it, Kaspers clearly thinks that there was a
conspiracy, his reason being in that one of the games, he offered a pawn for activity
and normally a computer would take the material, instead it played positionally. I dont
know who were involved but i know Joel Benjamin was one of them.
Benjamin and Illescas are the two that I can recall who were working on the Deep Blue team.
Originally posted by chesskid001 The problem is, as a previous commenter noted, Deep Blue was reprogrammed after every game. Any flaws discovered after one game would be quickly repaired for the next one. Kasparov was playing a match with a different opponent each game.
This is also true in human-vs-human matches to a certain extent. When one player has an innovation in a line that the other player uses, the other player "goes back to the drawing board".
I think the idea of reprogramming is not much different than a player and his seconds making adjustments in a match. It IS different, but just not that much.
Deep Blue vs Kasparov
14 Nov '11 05:17
Back to Top