one question

[kgburcham]

That’s easy. Today deep blue would be last.

A better question is what would happen if deep blue played the current world champion a 24 game tournament. Who would win? My guess is the world champion. That is using the 1997 deep blue. No changes for opening book or endgame database.
Mark

We don’t really know how good deep blue was because it played so few games. We can only compare 2 players by comparing their rating. Deep blue didn’t get a rating because it didn’t play enough. Kasparov was playing subpar and it was still a close match. So deep blue was probably a little below the rating of kasparov. Today’s top programs are much stronger than kasparov.

Mark---first you said Deep Blue would be last---then you said We really dont know how good Deep Blue was.
Comparing two players by their rating is very inaccurate.
Deep Blue did get a rating because it beat the World Champion, badly.
Could you please post the positions that you are referring to that Kasparov made "subpar"? I will check those against 3000 rated Rybka on quad with deep analysis to check difference between Kas move and Rybka move.

kgburcham

[michiguel]

That’s easy. Today deep blue would be last.

A better question is what would happen if deep blue played the current world champion a 24 game tournament. Who would win? My guess is the world champion. That is using the 1997 deep blue. No changes for opening book or endgame database.
Mark

We don’t really know how good deep blue was because it played so few games. We can only compare 2 players by comparing their rating. Deep blue didn’t get a rating because it didn’t play enough. Kasparov was playing subpar and it was still a close match. So deep blue was probably a little below the rating of kasparov. Today’s top programs are much stronger than kasparov.

Mark---first you said Deep Blue would be last---then you said We really dont know how good Deep Blue was.
Comparing two players by their rating is very inaccurate.
Deep Blue did get a rating because it beat the World Champion, badly.

I think you meant "barely" rather than "badly".

Miguel

Could you please post the positions that you are referring to that Kasparov made "subpar"? I will check those against 3000 rated Rybka on quad with deep analysis to check difference between Kas move and Rybka move.

kgburcham

[mschribr]

Mark---first you said Deep Blue would be last---then you said We really dont know how good Deep Blue was.
Comparing two players by their rating is very inaccurate.
Deep Blue did get a rating because it beat the World Champion, badly.
Could you please post the positions that you are referring to that Kasparov made "subpar"? I will check those against 3000 rated Rybka on quad with deep analysis to check difference between Kas move and Rybka move.
kgburcham

kgburcham,
We don’t know enough to give db a rating. We know enough to give db a ballpark. The db ballpark is way below current top programs.
Are you saying “Comparing two players by their rating is very inaccurate”? The best way to predict a winner is by a rating.
Db did not get a rating because it did not play enough games against rated players.
Db did not beat the champion badly. Db won by only 1 point.
The last game shows obvious the champ was not himself.
Mark

[kgburcham]

I think you meant "barely" rather than "badly".

Miguel


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

[kgburcham]

Mark---first you said Deep Blue would be last---then you said We really dont know how good Deep Blue was.
Comparing two players by their rating is very inaccurate.
Deep Blue did get a rating because it beat the World Champion, badly.
Could you please post the positions that you are referring to that Kasparov made "subpar"? I will check those against 3000 rated Rybka on quad with deep analysis to check difference between Kas move and Rybka move.
kgburcham

kgburcham,
We don’t know enough to give db a rating. We know enough to give db a ballpark. The db ballpark is way below current top programs.
Are you saying “Comparing two players by their rating is very inaccurate”? The best way to predict a winner is by a rating.
Db did not get a rating because it did not play enough games against rated players.
Db did not beat the champion badly. Db won by only 1 point.
The last game shows obvious the champ was not himself.
Mark

Like I said, back it up with accurate info.
show me the positions, line of play, moves, that give you your info. to conclude that Deep Blue is way below todays top programs.

see other post about the crying champion.
OK---no problem lets talk about the last game---what about it in detail.

[Event "IBM Kasparov vs. Deep Blue Rematch"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1997.05.11"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Deep Blue"]
[Black "Kasparov, Garry"]
[ECO "B17"]
[Result "1-0"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Ng5 Ngf6
6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 h6 8. Nxe6 Qe7 9. O-O fxe6 10. Bg6+ Kd8
11. Bf4 b5 12. a4 Bb7 13. Re1 Nd5 14. Bg3 Kc8 15. axb5 cxb5
16. Qd3 Bc6 17. Bf5 exf5 18. Rxe7 Bxe7 19. c4 1-0
[d] r1bqkb1r/pp1n1pp1/2p1pn1p/6N1/3P4/3B1N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq -

[mschribr]

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.

[mschribr]

Like I said, back it up with accurate info.
show me the positions, line of play, moves, that give you your info. to conclude that Deep Blue is way below todays top programs.

see other post about the crying champion.
OK---no problem lets talk about the last game---what about it in detail.

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.

[bob]

Mark---first you said Deep Blue would be last---then you said We really dont know how good Deep Blue was.
Comparing two players by their rating is very inaccurate.
Deep Blue did get a rating because it beat the World Champion, badly.
Could you please post the positions that you are referring to that Kasparov made "subpar"? I will check those against 3000 rated Rybka on quad with deep analysis to check difference between Kas move and Rybka move.
kgburcham

kgburcham,
We don’t know enough to give db a rating. We know enough to give db a ballpark. The db ballpark is way below current top programs.
Are you saying “Comparing two players by their rating is very inaccurate”? The best way to predict a winner is by a rating.
Db did not get a rating because it did not play enough games against rated players.
Db did not beat the champion badly. Db won by only 1 point.
The last game shows obvious the champ was not himself.
Mark

There are some knowns here.

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.

[bob]

Like I said, back it up with accurate info.
show me the positions, line of play, moves, that give you your info. to conclude that Deep Blue is way below todays top programs.

see other post about the crying champion.
OK---no problem lets talk about the last game---what about it in detail.

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...

[mschribr]

There are some knowns here.

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