Originally posted by Varenka 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.
Yes, the authors were suggesting that computers are better at "number crunching" whereas humans are better at "intuitive play" .
Also i think it might make a difference assigning values to the pieces, (ie. pawns=1, knights and bishops=3,rooks =5, queens=10 and kings = "nearly (?) infinity).
So if you punch in those figures then the computer would play according to those values rather than playing for position.
Originally posted by gezza 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, bef ...[text shortened]... machine (unless anyone thinks that IBM could not build a machine to run continuously ;-) )
Also the computer would have an unfair advantage with the timeclock, would it not?
Are modern multi CPU computers with the latest programs stronger than DB?
I know it's hard to tell since they dismantled it as soon as the show was over.
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?
From my understanding the programmers were able to make adjustments in-between games, making just the right tweak after the first game. I don't like that since that seems like man vs man/machine. Also, I read that in game 2 Kasparov had a forced draw that he missed. I can't confirm that because my skills aren't nearly high enough to spot it.
Last, what I read claimed that Kasparov realized in post game analysis that he missed the draw and was emotionally affected by it.
Obviously computers don't get emotional, psyched out or suffer from mental fatigue, ever.
Originally posted by sonhouse Are modern multi CPU computers with the latest programs stronger than DB?
I know it's hard to tell since they dismantled it as soon as the show was over.
Based on the analysis of Deep Blue's games, modern computers are significantly better than Deep Blue. Though I think the software is more responsible for this superiority rather than the hardware. Today's top engines have better evaluation functions, etc.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper From my understanding the programmers were able to make adjustments in-between games, making just the right tweak after the first game. I don't like that since that seems like man vs man/machine.
We know that humans had to build the machine in the first place. It was humans that created all the technology, hardware, software, etc. So with all this "human input" prior to the first game, I don't follow how making "tweaks" between games is any different. For me, the main thing is that the machine was on its own during each game. Similarly, Kasparov received advice between games but not during.
From what I've read, I think it was a fair match. What I think was unfair was that IBM refused a return match and instead put business interests first.
Deep Blue vs Kasparov
19 Nov '11 00:21
Back to Top