Last night I got to see Vikram Jayanti's documentary Game Over: Kasparov And The Machine.The documentary focuses on Kasparov, and suggests that his 1997 match against IBM's Deep Blue may have been a setup. Jayanti returns throughout the film to images of The Turk, the antique chess-playing machine and historical fraud. As we all know now, a human being secretly operated The Turk, and Kasparov believes that IBM had a team of humans—other chess grandmasters, primarily—telling Deep Blue what to do move by move. Jayanti plays up the conspiracy-thriller angle with dramatic camera moves and music, and brings Kasparov and IBM's staff back together for testy confrontations, in which Kasparov contends that he was treated as a patsy by a corporation overstating its capabilities.
I wonder what the rest of this community thinks about these issues, has anyone else seen this film? what did you think about it?
Originally posted by MikelRodriguezI haven't seen the film, but it seems from your description that Kasparov lets his pride and arrogance prevent him from seeing that of others. IBM might well rig a contest, but the programmers who built Deep Blue are too sure of their technical skill to permit a contest that does not reveal the skill of their machine. Cheating would be an admission of failure that they could not fathom.
Last night I got to see Vikram Jayanti's documentary Game Over: Kasparov And The Machine.The documentary focuses on Kasparov, and suggests that his 1997 match against IBM's Deep Blue may have been a setup. Jayanti returns throughout the film to images of The Turk, the antique chess-playing machine and historical fraud. As we all know now, a human be ...[text shortened]... ommunity thinks about these issues, has anyone else seen this film? what did you think about it?
Perhaps Kasparov has a mild case of the Fischer bug.
He was playing against a computer that could perform blindingly fast calculations and was programmed primarily to play chess i believe. Look at the specifications for Deep Blue, no wonder he lost.
32 Power2 SC cpu's (135Mhz, 32 bit registers, RISC , 15 million transistors)
512 Chess processors
One Trillion operations per second (500.000.000 for a high end PC 1999)
Originally posted by eldragonflyI heard from a friend it cost 5 million to build the machine, I may be wrong though
He was playing against a computer that could perform blindingly fast calculations and was programmed primarily to play chess i believe. Look at the specifications for Deep Blue, no wonder he lost.
32 Power2 SC cpu's (135Mhz, 32 bit registers, RISC , 15 million transistors)
512 Chess processors
One Trillion operations per second (500.000.000 for a high end PC 1999)
Originally posted by WulebgrKasparov trounced Deep Blue in the first game, by playing a typical anti-engine game.
I haven't seen the film, but it seems from your description that Kasparov lets his pride and arrogance prevent him from seeing that of others. IBM might well rig a contest, but the programmers who built Deep Blue are too sure of their technical skill to permit a contest that does not reveal the skill of their machine. Cheating would be an admission of failure that they could not fathom.
Perhaps Kasparov has a mild case of the Fischer bug.
He did the same thing in game 2, but the machine played a very human game. After that he lost the plot and couldn't really concentrate on the remaining games.
IBM's stocks went up billions on the back of that match, so shenanigans wouldn't surprise me at all. The way that the IBM team played a dirty match is a bit suss as well.
D
Originally posted by MikelRodriguezI saw that documetary a month or so again, I was left feeling that he could have won the match due to his easy win in the first game putting him ahead (so he could afford just to get draws when the machine got stronger) but the psychological tactics of the IBMers made him lose his concentration in the later games. I don't think the match proved that the computer is better than Kasparov, and it is strange how they wouldn't allow a return match, and just have the comuputer in storage doing nothing now.
Last night I got to see Vikram Jayanti's documentary Game Over: Kasparov And The Machine.The documentary focuses on Kasparov, and suggests that his 1997 match against IBM's Deep Blue may have been a setup. Jayanti returns throughout the film to images of The Turk, the antique chess-playing machine and historical fraud. As we all know now, a human be ...[text shortened]... ommunity thinks about these issues, has anyone else seen this film? what did you think about it?
I think it's pretty clear that Kasparov was fooled into thinking it was going to be an easy match. I think they let him play a dumbed down version, and then come game two they give him the real deal. This would be, and was a huge psychological blow. The way Kasparov reacted to this and the mind games by IBM that followed was all part of their plan. I would like to know why they were allowed to make "modifications" to the system after game one. Game one and game two were not the same system... I would like to think that if Kasparov had known what he was getting into he could of at least drawn the match.