mhull wrote:1997 (at the super-computer level) marked the end. IMHO, stamina and deep tactical accuracy alone would have worn down any human opponent had DB-2 played on in human tournaments and matches, especially had the DB-2 team actually been allowed to finish the DB-2 project. The version that defeated Kasparov was not actually complete in terms of all the features they had planned for the match. As it was, the machine's power shocked Kasparov, deflating his once indefatigable ego.
Game over, 1997.
No one knows that. Kasparov defeated himself. Game 2 was a draw and Kasparov suffered chess blindness due to his psychological state. Another player would likely have played 45..Qe3!!=.
Correct me if I am wrong:
The x axis is time (like year 2000)
The y axis is software (efficiency or no variable units)
The z axis is hardware (speed)
It depends on those 3 variables.
As efficiency improved over time, the hardware was becoming slower or (more accessible and cheaper) for the common person to replicate a supercomputer before the year 2000.
The hardware was about slightly pre 2000.
The software was about post 2005.
Remember this does not include closed games (pawn structure).
Just my 2 cents worth,
Jonathan Lee
mhull wrote:1997 (at the super-computer level) marked the end. IMHO, stamina and deep tactical accuracy alone would have worn down any human opponent had DB-2 played on in human tournaments and matches, especially had the DB-2 team actually been allowed to finish the DB-2 project. The version that defeated Kasparov was not actually complete in terms of all the features they had planned for the match. As it was, the machine's power shocked Kasparov, deflating his once indefatigable ego.
Game over, 1997.
No one knows that. Kasparov defeated himself. Game 2 was a draw and Kasparov suffered chess blindness due to his psychological state. Another player would likely have played 45..Qe3!!=.
It was too soon.
Of course there is game 2, but it's more interesting to read the comments made by GM Benjamin who had played the monster more than Kasparov. And even this brief match demonstrated the overwhelming machine advantage of accuracy and stamina. No human would have a chance in a long match. I have little doubt had it participated in a high category round robin like Tilburg, it would have ripped the field to pieces. JMO.
mhull wrote:1997 (at the super-computer level) marked the end. IMHO, stamina and deep tactical accuracy alone would have worn down any human opponent had DB-2 played on in human tournaments and matches, especially had the DB-2 team actually been allowed to finish the DB-2 project. The version that defeated Kasparov was not actually complete in terms of all the features they had planned for the match. As it was, the machine's power shocked Kasparov, deflating his once indefatigable ego.
Game over, 1997.
No one knows that. Kasparov defeated himself. Game 2 was a draw and Kasparov suffered chess blindness due to his psychological state. Another player would likely have played 45..Qe3!!=.
It was too soon.
Of course there is game 2, but it's more interesting to read the comments made by GM Benjamin who had played the monster more than Kasparov. And even this brief match demonstrated the overwhelming machine advantage of accuracy and stamina. No human would have a chance in a long match. I have little doubt had it participated in a high category round robin like Tilburg, it would have ripped the field to pieces. JMO.
I don't disagree with that but you know what I mean.
Kasparov's human move (or interference or whatever) is a different topic, for me: paranoia seems fitting better then ego as a partial motive, and Chess geniuses probably can only learn to live with it.
But for the other one, I don't think it's annoying, for human players or human programmers, as it's a legitimate point of view.
Anyway by the most voted 2005, K himself, after retirement or during it obviously, assessed machines as impossible to beat for humans. And just like any normal sundays' chess player asked for chess engines with a more human charachter, with a "thinking process" less dependent on brute force calculation.
For me the man vs machine in chess is pretty much the same comparison of man vs car racing. Usain Bolt can't beat a car in a race by foot. We accept that and still we have interessting man only and car only competitions.
I think computer chess is going to be the same. Soon would be just impossible to beat computers games. Like a marathon runner simply can't prepare for a race by studying the car races like Formula 1, Nascar or Rallies.
