Originally posted by powershakerAnd I said that the movie was crap on the basis that it plays up a controvertial angle and ignores anything that would discount it.
I believe I said that the movie makes those insinuations, Xanthos? I didn't say they were entirely correct. But, it seems to be a dirty thing to involve chess with corporate earnings.
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZWell, that means your point is this: you can't believe everything you read in the papers. I think they've been saying that forever. Can't you come up with something new Xanthos? HAHA! Sorry, I had to pick. Don't mean it in seriousness.
And I said that the movie was crap on the basis that it plays up a controvertial angle and ignores anything that would discount it.
thinking machines can outwit people in chess, in the same way a toaster can make better toast. Kasparov and Deep Blue reminds me of the old John Henry Vs the machine laying down track. Didn't he die trying in the process. Am I making any sense? Machines are best at being machines. People are better at being human. All diamonds have flaws.
1 edit
Originally posted by powershakerAt one point, Kasparov deliberately made a move based on the fact he was playing a computer, and he did not expect (with 100% certainty) that Deep Blue would make such a human move which would destroy his game. Deep Blue did make that move! Kasparov buried his head in his hands and was awestruck at the human move that Deep Blue (rather a human Grandmaster combined with Deep Blue) made.
It's like a documentary, and it makes strong insinuations that IBM's Deep Blue team was using human intervention in the man versus machine match. It's funny, IBM would never turn in the move lists for the machine. They would never turn the annotations over even though they said they would. In the first game, Kasparov annihilated Deep Blue. IBM was ...[text shortened]... The whole movie brings it to light. I suggest all chess players peruse its contents just once.
sorry i dont know how to use the quote box but what does all this mean? my translation is roughly this: Kasparov made an error on purpose that he thought only a human could pick up on? now while computers are far from "solving" chess, i think that a machine making millions of calculations per second can surely pick up on errors. what exactly is a "human" move as opposed to a "supercomputer" move?
Originally posted by stackolaWell, that's simple to answer, stackola. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that an amateur teaming up with a computer (by amateur meaning good class players) can easily defeat a grandmaster. Mixing human moves with computers moves is lethal. Kasparov believed he was playing a computer, not a human. So, if they used a human move and threw it into the loop with the computer's logical and calculatory precision, then Kasparov surely would be thrown off his game. One of the most important features of playing professional chess is a grandmaster knowing "who he is playing," and that's why they study other opponent's games. Kasparov was already unable to study most of Deep Blue's games. With a human grandmaster thrown into the loop, how could he have won? But, it says a lot for Kasparov that he won some of the games. It proves how truly great he really is.
At one point, Kasparov deliberately made a move based on the fact he was playing a computer, and he did not expect (with 100% certainty) that Deep Blue would make such a human move which would destroy his game. Deep Blue did make that move! Kasparov buried his head in his hands and was awestruck at the human move that Deep Blue (rather a human Grandmaster ...[text shortened]... rely pick up on errors. what exactly is a "human" move as opposed to a "supercomputer" move?
Originally posted by powershaker🙄
Well, that's simple to answer, stackola. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that an amateur teaming up with a computer (by amateur meaning good class players) can easily defeat a grandmaster. Mixing human moves with computers moves is lethal. Kasparov believed he was playing a computer, not a human. So, if they used a human move and threw ...[text shortened]... says a lot for Kasparov that he won some of the games. It proves how truly great he really is.
PS Kasparov, just like every GM who has played a match against a machine (including all participants at Bilabo), was given a copy of the engine well before the match. Of course it wasn't the final version and was tweaked even during the match but GMs can do the same, change their play style to throw off the opponent.