kgburcham wrote:Miguel, In my opinion Kasparov got beat badly.
Not only did they beat the all time world champion on the board by outplaying him, they made Kasparov question Deep Blue moves, axb5, Be4, f4 etc. also missing the draw Qe3.
Kasparov got beat so badly that he got very angry.
Kasparov got beat so badly that he was lashing out in anger at everyone involved.
kasparov got beat so badly that he was totally embarrased.
Kasparov got beat so badly he used the word God-like referring to some moves.
If you make someone breakdown and cry after a loss, to them they got beat badly, real bad.
Kasparov cried after his loss, he felt bad, and he felt he got beat real bad, totally crushed.
kgburcham
Kasparov was playing subpar because he was psyched out by ibm. I think Kasparov acted badly after the match because he let himself be psyched out and lose the match. Kasparov is usually the one who psyches out the other player. So he was angry and embarrassed at himself. Kasparov said godlike because he was saying db was playing unevenly. Some moves was great was others was mediocre. He didn’t understand how this is possible.
Kasparov beat himself. The last game was horrible, and any of the top 20 engines today will beat him with that performance. I addition, the famous Ruy Lopez game with the Be4 move was a draw and GK resigned. Nobody would do that in their right mind. BTW, Deep blue positional chess was not really anything to admire in both matches.
mschribr wrote:
What I am saying the game showed kasparov playing subpar and db did not play anything spectacular. For game 6 hsu said kasparov was trying to trick db with some novel moves that backfired. The truth is Kasparov lost game 6 because of a blunder. He blundered because he was not concentrating, he was psyched out. The blunder was in opening moves.
This has never been proven. Someone did test Fritz in this position, and Fritz lost every game from the white side, sacrificing the piece and then failing to figure out how to press the attack and win. It has never been proven whether this was an experiment gone bad, or just a poor memory. Most that know Kasparov well have poo-pooed the idea that his memory of an opening was faulty...
Which position did fritz lose are you talking about? From black’s move 11?
Under normal conditions kasparov would never do that. But he was psyched out and not thinking about the game. So he blundered or maybe his way of saying I don’t want to play with a cheater, in his mind.
Mark
michiguel wrote:
Kasparov beat himself. The last game was horrible, and any of the top 20 engines today will beat him with that performance. I addition, the famous Ruy Lopez game with the Be4 move was a draw and GK resigned. Nobody would do that in their right mind. BTW, Deep blue positional chess was not really anything to admire in both matches.
mschribr wrote:
What I am saying the game showed kasparov playing subpar and db did not play anything spectacular. For game 6 hsu said kasparov was trying to trick db with some novel moves that backfired. The truth is Kasparov lost game 6 because of a blunder. He blundered because he was not concentrating, he was psyched out. The blunder was in opening moves.
This has never been proven. Someone did test Fritz in this position, and Fritz lost every game from the white side, sacrificing the piece and then failing to figure out how to press the attack and win. It has never been proven whether this was an experiment gone bad, or just a poor memory. Most that know Kasparov well have poo-pooed the idea that his memory of an opening was faulty...
Which position did fritz lose are you talking about? From black’s move 11?
Under normal conditions kasparov would never do that. But he was psyched out and not thinking about the game. So he blundered or maybe his way of saying I don’t want to play with a cheater, in his mind.
Mark
Something like that. I fully support this interpretation. After the event in game 2 already and shortly afterwards the match was over for Kasparov. In difference to a money eager company like IBM and its assistants Kasparov somehow, some may find it weird, has a concept of honor that does not expect that lousy engineers could fool him in plain daylight and public of the whole world. And he did right. From them I never heard anything in the last 11 years. The machine was dismantled. So that above all nothing could be examined. Now if this isnt very ugly. Winning ugly it's called.
With that event the future of computerchess among humans, except training purposes, is dead. It was too much deceiving the honest soul of one of the best players in the history of chess, honest dispite his failures and personality. But this is all known. There is no true genius without a very difficult psyche. That doesnt speak against the person.
But apart from that I better do not continue in this thread unless I dont want to commit suicide. Virtually. I just wanted to show my solidarity.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
mschribr wrote:
What I am saying the game showed kasparov playing subpar and db did not play anything spectacular. For game 6 hsu said kasparov was trying to trick db with some novel moves that backfired. The truth is Kasparov lost game 6 because of a blunder. He blundered because he was not concentrating, he was psyched out. The blunder was in opening moves.
This has never been proven. Someone did test Fritz in this position, and Fritz lost every game from the white side, sacrificing the piece and then failing to figure out how to press the attack and win. It has never been proven whether this was an experiment gone bad, or just a poor memory. Most that know Kasparov well have poo-pooed the idea that his memory of an opening was faulty...
Which position did fritz lose are you talking about? From black’s move 11?
Under normal conditions kasparov would never do that. But he was psyched out and not thinking about the game. So he blundered or maybe his way of saying I don’t want to play with a cheater, in his mind.
Mark
From the point where white sacs the knight on e6. White is a piece down, and it takes careful planning to not let black out of the hole where his extra piece will then be enough to win the game...
In 1997, computers were not fast enough to press the attack properly with the white pieces, and were too tempted to trade material to recapture a pawn or two which is not enough to offset the extra black piece.
The biggest is the predecessor deep thought, at 5M nodes per second or so, produced a 2600-level rating playing _only_ grandmaster players. It had to produce a 2500+ rating over 24 consecutive games against GM-players to claim the second Fredkin prize, which it did quite easily. DB1 was stronger than deep thought. By how much is debatable, but DB1 was 100x faster at least. So it had to be a 2700-level player. DB2 was 2x faster, and with a better evaluation. It had to be at least a 2750 level player. That would _not_ finish "last" in a tournament with today's programs... not even close.
So you’re saying the 1997 db that beat kasparov was 2750. I agree. This is a little below kasparov’s 2800. But a 2750 player would have no chance against today’s programs. Today’s best programs are over 3000. Remember hydra against Adams in 2005. Fritz against kramnik in 2006.
Mark
Note that is not exactly what I said, nor what I believe. Based on DT producing a 2600+ Elo playing many different GMs. DT peaked at about 5M nodes per second with a 12 processor version. DB1 took that to new highs, at least 20x faster. DB's branching factor was higher than today's programs, so one might be conservative and give it another 2 plies with that speed, which would be somewhere over +100. DB2 was faster still, peaking at 1000M nodes per second, averaging over 200M.
Actual rating would be a guess, but I'd think 2750 is a solid lower bound... and maybe pretty accurate...
michiguel wrote:
Kasparov beat himself. The last game was horrible, and any of the top 20 engines today will beat him with that performance. I addition, the famous Ruy Lopez game with the Be4 move was a draw and GK resigned. Nobody would do that in their right mind. BTW, Deep blue positional chess was not really anything to admire in both matches.
Miguel
Your 100% correct.
Mark
I don't agree. At the time, _nobody_ was able to play kasparov to a draw in a game, much less a match, when you go beyond blitz speeds. DB did it more than once, showing it was _very_ strong...
