When did the Computer Surpass Man?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Hydra beat Kasimdzhanov 1.5-0.5
Khalifman only played one game (a draw) against Hydra.
Also, Hydra beat Ponomariov 3-0

When you add in the Adams games, that looks about like a world championship performance to me. Maybe Hydra was just lucky, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Hydra drew 1 game with Kasimdzhanov. Kasimdzhanov was 140 points less than the number 1 player. If hydra was playing better than world champion level chess then hydra should have won all games against Kasimdzhanov, a fide number 32 player. Adams losses were because he was not prepared for hydra.

If hydra was so strong why didn’t hydra play the world champion? The owner of hydra, Sheikh in Abu Dhabi, has the money to sponsor a match with the world champion if they wanted to. They didn’t because hydra is not world champion level.

So a world champion will never draw against someone rated 140 points lower than them? That's ridiculous. Excusing Adams for not being "ready" is almost as bad. It's not like he learned about the match the day before it started. The nine games against Ponomariov and Adams were way above championship level, which I think outweighs the few others being somewhat less.

Fully agreed here....

[mschribr]

Not really. After studying the games, I came to the conclusion that Kasparov was superior in 1997, but he lost mainly because of physchological weakness. The same weakness which he also suffered in his match against Kramnik, the weakness and the surprise when you realize that your opponent is stronger than you thought he would be. But this does not mean he is actually stronger than you (although I tend to believe that in the second case, Kramnik was indeed stronger). This weakness was in my opinion obvious in the last game of the match.

Also, since we are in this forum and theoretically we all know that many games are needed to determine who is stronger, I could add that winning a match with 3.5-2.5 does not mean you have surpassed your opponent.

Finally, I am surprised you say Kasparov was "gun-shy" after this match. It is well known he immediately requested a rematch, and IBM was the one to refuse.

I agree 100%.

[mschribr]

So a world champion will never draw against someone rated 140 points lower than them? That's ridiculous. Excusing Adams for not being "ready" is almost as bad. It's not like he learned about the match the day before it started. The nine games against Ponomariov and Adams were way above championship level, which I think outweighs the few others being somewhat less.

Of course a 2870 or even a 2970 might draw 2660. But how likely is that to happen? Its could also be that hydra was playing at the world champion level of 2820 and not able to beat the world champion. Kasparov could have gotten the same results.

[mschribr]

The nine games against Ponomariov and Adams were way above championship level, which I think outweighs the few others being somewhat less.

BayesElo output for all the GM games with Hydra I found for 2004-5:

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws
   1 Hydra                2872  159   74    18   86%  2687   28%
   2 Veselin Topalov      2857  383  392     1   50%  2872  100%
   3 Alexander Khalifman  2857  383  392     1   50%  2872  100%
   4 Rustam Kasimdzhanov  2782  271  395     2   25%  2872   50%
   5 Sergey Karjakin      2738  341  917     1    0%  2872    0%
   6 Evgeny Vladimirov    2685  195  393     4   13%  2872   25%
   7 Adams,Mi             2629  164  387     6    8%  2872   17%
   8 Ruslan Ponomariov    2612  204  865     3    0%  2872    0%

Using a prior of 1, and an offset selected to make the Elo of Hydra's opponents match their weighted average (2687). Kasparov was around 2810 at the time.

What is the minus column? What is the minus 74 for hydra? Could that give hydra a 2798?

[mschribr]

Hydra drew 1 game with Kasimdzhanov. Kasimdzhanov was 140 points less than the number 1 player. If hydra was playing better than world champion level chess then hydra should have won all games against Kasimdzhanov, a fide number 32 player. Adams losses were because he was not prepared for hydra.

If hydra was so strong why didn’t hydra play the world champion? The owner of hydra, Sheikh in Abu Dhabi, has the money to sponsor a match with the world champion if they wanted to. They didn’t because hydra is not world champion level.

Two speculations in one short sentence,you simply can't know that.no offence is intended of course,just my opinion....

I don’t follow you. What are the 2 speculations? What can’t I know?

1.We don't know if they didn't want to play the world champion,maybe the human refused to play....

If the world champion refused then they would have announced that the world champion refused to play hydra. That sort of an admission that hydra is stronger. If not the world champion then play the number 2 or 3.

2.At that time,we don't know if Hydra was'nt playing at a world champion level....

That exactly my point we don’t know nor have any proof hydra was playing above the world champion level.

[james uselton]

Well, in May of 97', when the match took place, the machine was stronger. Why---I've heard a dozen reasons why Kasparov lost. Kasparov says he was cheated. People on this thread say he was psyched out, over-confident and so on and so forth. There are always going to be explanations why someone lost. How often do you hear---Man, I dont have any excuses. I really got my ass handed to me on a platter today---I was crushed!

There was an interview with Bent Larsen in the twilight of his career. He was asked why he never became world champion. He said---'I just happened to have played in an era when there were several players stronger than me'. How often do you hear a chess player so refreshingly honest.
Why aren't there more around today?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Well, in May of 97', when the match took place, the machine was stronger. Why---I've heard a dozen reasons why Kasparov lost. Kasparov says he was cheated. People on this thread say he was psyched out, over-confident and so on and so forth. There are always going to be explanations why someone lost. How often do you hear---Man, I dont have any excuses. I really got my ass handed to me on a platter today---I was crushed!

There was an interview with Bent Larsen in the twilight of his career. He was asked why he never became world champion. He said---'I just happened to have played in an era when there were several players stronger than me'. How often do you hear a chess player so refreshingly honest.
Why aren't there more around today?

Beautiful and very well said James

[mschribr]

Well, in May of 97', when the match took place, the machine was stronger. Why---I've heard a dozen reasons why Kasparov lost. Kasparov says he was cheated. People on this thread say he was psyched out, over-confident and so on and so forth. There are always going to be explanations why someone lost. How often do you hear---Man, I dont have any excuses. I really got my ass handed to me on a platter today---I was crushed!

The way to know who is stronger is by looking for a trend. If DB would have continued to win then you would be right. Then with hindsight we would know Kasparov should have admitted he was outplayed. But if DB loses or stops playing while Kasparov continues to play, win and be number 1 then DB’s win by 1 point was a fluke.

[S.Taylor]

Well, in May of 97', when the match took place, the machine was stronger. Why---I've heard a dozen reasons why Kasparov lost. Kasparov says he was cheated. People on this thread say he was psyched out, over-confident and so on and so forth. There are always going to be explanations why someone lost. How often do you hear---Man, I dont have any excuses. I really got my ass handed to me on a platter today---I was crushed!

There was an interview with Bent Larsen in the twilight of his career. He was asked why he never became world champion. He said---'I just happened to have played in an era when there were several players stronger than me'. How often do you hear a chess player so refreshingly honest.
Why aren't there more around today?

Beautiful and very well said James

One doesn't always lose because others are stronger.

One is dependent on a huge amount of other factors, even just to play like you can, ever. And certainly on each occasion in itself.

[Terry McCracken]

Well, in May of 97', when the match took place, the machine was stronger. Why---I've heard a dozen reasons why Kasparov lost. Kasparov says he was cheated. People on this thread say he was psyched out, over-confident and so on and so forth. There are always going to be explanations why someone lost. How often do you hear---Man, I dont have any excuses. I really got my ass handed to me on a platter today---I was crushed!

There was an interview with Bent Larsen in the twilight of his career. He was asked why he never became world champion. He said---'I just happened to have played in an era when there were several players stronger than me'. How often do you hear a chess player so refreshingly honest.
Why aren't there more around today?

Losing by a point in a six game match isn't a crush. In fact it was a fluke and one IBM never dared risk again as it would hurt their share holders/stock and IBM's reputation so they quickly fired the team and dismantled Deep Blue strictly for business reasons.

If you were an experienced chess player you'd know game six was a travesty that Kasparov handed that game to IBM after mixing up move order on move 7 with h6??

Also game two was a draw but Kasparov made an astonishing decision to resign!!?

Game five was a win for Kasparov but traded down Queens as that was thought to be the right thing to do playing a computer but not Deep Blue of 1997, Kasparov acted on bad advice before the match.

Game one Kasparov shone brilliantly and crushed Deep Blue, the machine had no clue it was losing until the end of the game yet every master knew the machine was lost many moves ahead of Deep Blue.

Unless you're a very strong player you can't assess Deep Blue's play versus Kasparov's.