Kasparov was in no mood to play in the sixth game, as stated in the programme he had lost before playing even. The whole match was a pile of crap. It was obvious a human had interviened in game 2. Look what happened to IBM's stock after they won the match, they had to win by any means. After watching the film I had no doubts IBM cheated, why wern't the logs from game 2 ever published or shown to anyone for example, if IBM hadnt used a top player to help out the machines move logs would have been shown straight away, instead he (kasparov) was always denied. The match was Kasparov Vs IBM not Man Vs machine.
Originally posted by mothman1The logs were published in 2000. The movie failed to mention that.
Kasparov was in no mood to play in the sixth game, as stated in the programme he had lost before playing even. The whole match was a pile of crap. It was obvious a human had interviened in game 2. Look what happened to IBM's stock after they won the match, they had to win by any means. After watching the film I had no doubts IBM cheated, why wern't the lo ...[text shortened]... away, instead he (kasparov) was always denied. The match was Kasparov Vs IBM not Man Vs machine.
And I guess you would be the perfect person to judge whether a human was helping Deep Blue or not wouldn't you.
I've come to the conclusion you lot are full of it.
the fact was gary was beaten by a database and you lot cant handle that pure FACT.
You can say what you like about garys mental state the simple fact was he lost the 6th game to a db in the opening which should a piece of cake for the worlds greatest player.
And what happen in game two. garys mental state wasn't disturbed in that game so instead he said IBM had a room full of GM's + the aid of super-computer with intergrated circuit specifically for playing chess 200 of them working in parallel
excuses excuses excuses...........
gary got the hump cos the computer wouldn't take his sacrifice pawn!
he said the computer should of taken the pawn because it was a computer. only need to ask yourself does fritz or chessmaster always take sacrifice pieces the answer NO!!!.
and after all your feeble excuses the fact still remians gary was beaten by a book. none of you can make me think any different.
Originally posted by CenterNutI think the fact that you're freeloading makes it alot worse that you spout so much crap. Nothing wrong with playing here free, but geez if you're not contributing anything to the site then have the decency to stfu when at least 10-20 people have told you to.
I've come to the conclusion you lot are full of it.
the fact was gary was beaten by a database and you lot cant handle that pure FACT.
You can say what you like about garys mental state the simple fact was he lost the 6th game to a d ...[text shortened]... or chessmaster always take sacrifice pieces the answer NO!!!.
Originally posted by Dfthdoh i get it. I gota pay each month to be in the crew well im not paying to be in your crew cos it sux. and its not crap its fact backed up by hard evidence. which is more than I can say about your comments.
I think the fact that you're freeloading makes it alot worse that you spout so much crap. Nothing wrong with playing here free, but geez if you're not contributing anything to the site then have the decency to stfu when at least 10-20 people have told you to.
Originally posted by mothman1http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/game2.log
After watching the film I had no doubts IBM cheated, why wern't the logs from game 2 ever published or shown to anyone for example, if IBM hadnt used a top player to help out the machines move logs would have been shown straight away, instead he (kasparov) was always denied.
From the Chesscafe review at http://www.chesscafe.com/Reviews/books.htm:
For years after the match, Kasparov had questioned Deep Blue’s 37.Be4 and other human-like moves, demanding printouts and logs to Deep Blue’s thought process. The logs were actually published in March 2000 at the I.B.M. website. From numerous Kasparov interviews since then, it seems that Kasparov did not know about their publication until about April 2005. But Hsu certainly knew about them at the time the documentary was made, and it’s likely that many of the other people interviewed for the movie knew about them, too. In defiance of their importance, Jayanti completely ignores their existence, and this is another major failing of the movie. Chess journalist, Mig Greengard, sums up Game Over’s omission of the infamous logs, rather well. From his DailyDirt blog:
Why didn’t this come up [in the movie]? Didn’t [Joel] Benjamin or someone else tell them the logs were available online? It’s either a glaring error or an intentional omission so as not to deflate the conspiratorial tone of the film…I’d still like to know when they were first released, why it took so long, and who finally authorized it.
Originally posted by mothman1I believe the main reason IBM didn't release the logs immediately was because it would allow other computer chess firms to stand on their shoulders so to speak.
I made my mind up from watching the film. I suppose it was biased in favore of Kasparov and I didn't know the logs had been released. I still find it odd that it took them so long to release them, I am still of the opinion that releasing the logs straight away would have removed all doubt from the argument. I am suprised how much it affected Kasparov thoug ...[text shortened]... idn't use human help. There is always one arogant c*nt per forum and I guess your it for RHD.🙂
And as for my comment, I just call it like I see it.
Originally posted by XanthosNZAlso in the film, and more believable than the conspiracy ideas, was the idea that by not releasing the logs, IBM put Kasparov under even more psychological pressure. Maybe this was a secondary effect and they refused mainly out of fear of competitors looking in the logs, but I doubt they didn't like their opponent losing his concentration because of it.
I believe the main reason IBM didn't release the logs immediately was because it would allow other computer chess firms to stand on their shoulders so to speak.
And as for my comment, I just call it like I see it.
it's a shame Kasparov could never recover from his surprise over the second game, it might have been another match if he did. And I do think he got a raw deal in that match. Playing such a powerful opponent without any preparation must be a huge disadvantage.
David
Pretty sad when tv, looking for chess drama, can only find one human worthy of notice. Can you imagine Leko Vs. Machine or Anan or any of the other chess bookkeepers? Or (God save us) how about TWO humans playing each other, wouldn't that be great? Too bad we can't find two human chess players on the planet to generate enough interest to have a tv show. They tried to film Fischer and Spassky, but, of course, the nutjob wouldn't have the whirring of the cameras to distract him.
Originally posted by mothman1
I made my mind up from watching the film. I suppose it was biased in favore of Kasparov and I didn't know the logs had been released. I still find it odd that it took them so long to release them, I am still of the opinion that releasing the logs straight away would have removed all doubt from the argument. I am suprised how much it affected Kasparov thoug ...[text shortened]... idn't use human help. There is always one arogant c*nt per forum and I guess your it for RHD.🙂
According to this article the logs were given to him soon after Kasparov asked for them. It even explains the processes that Deep Blue went through to decide the winning line.
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cfs/472_html/Intro/NYT_Intro/ChessMatch/KasparovUnbowed.html
Who is correct?