| |
Main
Date: 10 Oct 2005 01:32:24
From: LSD
Subject: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
I watch this movie tonight, sort of, while I was working on something.
I found it interesting..and was shocked to hear Kasparov say he was cheated.
Anyone got strong (or better still, informed) opinions about this. Did the
Deep Blue team cheat and have grandmasters available to kill off errant
candidate moves for DB when Kasparov got tricky, or is Kasparov a whiner who
needs to make excuses when he loses?
Personally I like Kasparov (he will make a good politician), and I dislike
cheaters...but I can't believe those computer scientists would cheat.
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2005 20:32:35
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
It was only a moderately interesting movie even though I'm a big fan of
chess and Kasparov the player. Unfortunately he comes across as a paranoid.
I'm sure interest in the movie will drop exponentially since he's no longer
an active player.
"LSD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I watch this movie tonight, sort of, while I was working on something.
>
> I found it interesting..and was shocked to hear Kasparov say he was
> cheated.
>
> Anyone got strong (or better still, informed) opinions about this. Did
> the Deep Blue team cheat and have grandmasters available to kill off
> errant candidate moves for DB when Kasparov got tricky, or is Kasparov a
> whiner who needs to make excuses when he loses?
>
> Personally I like Kasparov (he will make a good politician), and I dislike
> cheaters...but I can't believe those computer scientists would cheat.
>
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2005 06:40:26
From: davidf
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
I must add one more note to the discussion: why didn't IBM allow
Kasparov - or the general public - to see the log file for Deep Blue's
"thinking"? I don't mean presenting the programming of the thing - that
would be normal industrial secret, ok - but the log? why not show it?
|
| | |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2005 21:38:21
From:
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
There is an active message board dedicated to Deep Blue and its
contributions to Chess. Not only can you post messages there (totally
free of charge), but you can also play through just about all the games
that Deep Blue ever played publicly (in a very easy click-and-move
format).
I've posted a number of messages on this board myself, under the name
"BishopBerkeley". Some of the issues raised here have been addressed
over there.
Here it is:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=29912
Of course, the parent site is one of the finest, most accessible
collections of great Chess games on the Web (over 300,000 of the
greatest games ever played, all accessible for free, and all in the
same easy format):
http://www.chessgames.com/
Cheers!
Brett
"Bishop Berkeley's Phantasmagorical Chess Site"
http://www.bbbbbb.org/
LSD wrote:
> I watch this movie tonight, sort of, while I was working on something.
>
> I found it interesting..and was shocked to hear Kasparov say he was cheated.
>
> Anyone got strong (or better still, informed) opinions about this. Did the
> Deep Blue team cheat and have grandmasters available to kill off errant
> candidate moves for DB when Kasparov got tricky, or is Kasparov a whiner who
> needs to make excuses when he loses?
>
> Personally I like Kasparov (he will make a good politician), and I dislike
> cheaters...but I can't believe those computer scientists would cheat.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2005 06:47:58
From: anthony mee
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
"LSD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I watch this movie tonight, sort of, while I was working on something.
>
> I found it interesting..and was shocked to hear Kasparov say he was
> cheated.
>
> Anyone got strong (or better still, informed) opinions about this. Did
> the Deep Blue team cheat and have grandmasters available to kill off
> errant candidate moves for DB when Kasparov got tricky, or is Kasparov a
> whiner who needs to make excuses when he loses?
>
> Personally I like Kasparov (he will make a good politician), and I dislike
> cheaters...but I can't believe those computer scientists would cheat.
>of course they would cheat - if they found the way. That's business!!
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 17:14:01
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
"LSD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I watch this movie tonight, sort of, while I was working on something.
>
> I found it interesting..and was shocked to hear Kasparov say he was
> cheated.
>
> Anyone got strong (or better still, informed) opinions about this. Did
> the Deep Blue team cheat and have grandmasters available to kill off
> errant candidate moves for DB when Kasparov got tricky, or is Kasparov a
> whiner who needs to make excuses when he loses?
>
> Personally I like Kasparov (he will make a good politician), and I dislike
> cheaters...but I can't believe those computer scientists would cheat.
Watching this DVD, I thought it might have been the work of Michael Moore.
It's almost as unbalanced in Kasparov's favor as a documentary can get.
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the newsgroup)
>
>
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 10:02:27
From: ChessWriter
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
Check out my review of GAME OVER. I cover a lot of the stuff you guys
have been talking about.
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review481.pdf
Howard Goldowsky
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 08:49:19
From: Bateman
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
You dont need one. Just type in Kasparov and deep blue and do a keyword
search.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 06:47:20
From: Bateman
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
I take it all back!! You're right , it was be4. I'm not much given to
conspiracy theories in general but I still dont think that Kasparov is
just exhibiting sour grapes though.
|
| | |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Oct 2005 09:24:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
tin Brown <
|
| | | | |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Oct 2005 10:43:45
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
tin Brown <
|
| | | | | | |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 05:13:09
From: Bateman
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
That's right, It's a long time since I played through the game. The
perpetual check wasn't outside D.B.'S search horizon either. And
anyway, all computer chess programs will always selectively search a
sequence of checks, so even if the draw was 15-20 ply deep (not outside
D.B.'s brute force) most computers will find it. That's the
significance of bd4, axb5 doesn't allow the perpetual, bd4 does.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Oct 2005 22:16:31
From: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
Bateman wrote:
> That's right, It's a long time since I played through the game. The
> perpetual check wasn't outside D.B.'S search horizon either. And
> anyway, all computer chess programs will always selectively search a
> sequence of checks, so even if the draw was 15-20 ply deep (not outside
> D.B.'s brute force) most computers will find it. That's the
> significance of bd4, axb5 doesn't allow the perpetual, bd4 does.
The sequence of checks has a silent move inbetween.
--
GCP
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 04:42:59
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
LSD wrote:
> I watch this movie tonight, sort of, while I was working on something.
> I found it interesting..and was shocked to hear Kasparov say he was cheated.
> Anyone got strong (or better still, informed) opinions about this.
For the most informed opinion, I would second Mr. Brown's
recommendation of "Behind Deep Blue" by Feng-Hsiung Hsu, a very good
book.
Hsu was an important member of the Deep Blue team. Kasparov was not
cheated, he was just out-worked (and that takes some doing). Hsu has
some very harsh words for Mr. Kasparov, whose allegations are
groundless. The "Game Over" filmmakers seem to have been somewhat
misleading and irresponsible in this regard.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 03:52:19
From: Bateman
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
No you dont recall correctly. The move was bd4. It was not a move a
computer would have chosen for the simple reason that it allowed
Kasparov to draw with a perpetual check. Kasparov overlooked this
forced draw at the time, but Deep Blue must have been aware of it. Deep
Blue isn't programmed to make moves which Negatively affect it's
evaluation, but at the time it played bd4 DB already had itself better,
so why would it have played a move it would have seen as creating a
0.00 evaluation? When Fischer accused the Soviets of rigging the
candidates tournaments everyone said he was whining too. Why do you
refer to Kasparov as brilliant in the past tense? Is he past it now? Do
you think he'd be a sucker for your Kings Indian down the club? Dont
tell me, you beat him already, right?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2005 13:44:21
From: Andrew Walker
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
"Bateman" <[email protected] > writes:
>No you dont recall correctly. The move was bd4. It was not a move a
>computer would have chosen for the simple reason that it allowed
>Kasparov to draw with a perpetual check. Kasparov overlooked this
>forced draw at the time, but Deep Blue must have been aware of it. Deep
>Blue isn't programmed to make moves which Negatively affect it's
>evaluation, but at the time it played bd4 DB already had itself better,
>so why would it have played a move it would have seen as creating a
>0.00 evaluation? When Fischer accused the Soviets of rigging the
>candidates tournaments everyone said he was whining too. Why do you
>refer to Kasparov as brilliant in the past tense? Is he past it now? Do
>you think he'd be a sucker for your Kings Indian down the club? Dont
>tell me, you beat him already, right?
Um, do you realise how deep it would have needed to search to find the
perpetual from that move?
Andrew
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 17:25:21
From: Ruud
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
Past tence because he doesn't play anymore.
I thought it was a Ruy Lopez in wich he took it wrong, but I must be wrong.
I don't have any database with these DB -Kasparov games.
"Bateman" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> No you dont recall correctly. The move was bd4. It was not a move a
> computer would have chosen for the simple reason that it allowed
> Kasparov to draw with a perpetual check. Kasparov overlooked this
> forced draw at the time, but Deep Blue must have been aware of it. Deep
> Blue isn't programmed to make moves which Negatively affect it's
> evaluation, but at the time it played bd4 DB already had itself better,
> so why would it have played a move it would have seen as creating a
> 0.00 evaluation? When Fischer accused the Soviets of rigging the
> candidates tournaments everyone said he was whining too. Why do you
> refer to Kasparov as brilliant in the past tense? Is he past it now? Do
> you think he'd be a sucker for your Kings Indian down the club? Dont
> tell me, you beat him already, right?
>
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 09:56:39
From: Grackle
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
"Bateman" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why do you
> refer to Kasparov as brilliant in the past tense? Is he past it now? Do
> you think he'd be a sucker for your Kings Indian down the club? Dont
> tell me, you beat him already, right?
>
I think I could beat him...if he was really drunk.
|
| | |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 13:48:04
From: bruno
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
The move wasn't even Bd4 as a lot of people think for some reason, but the
big fuzz is about the move axb5 (with Bd4 next) instead of the move Qb6
(which wins a pawn).
Still to this day none of the common engines (shredder,fritz,nimzo,junior)
play this move; they all go for Qb6.
Bateman" <[email protected] > schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> No you dont recall correctly. The move was bd4. It was not a move a
> computer would have chosen for the simple reason that it allowed
> Kasparov to draw with a perpetual check. Kasparov overlooked this
> forced draw at the time, but Deep Blue must have been aware of it. Deep
> Blue isn't programmed to make moves which Negatively affect it's
> evaluation, but at the time it played bd4 DB already had itself better,
> so why would it have played a move it would have seen as creating a
> 0.00 evaluation? When Fischer accused the Soviets of rigging the
> candidates tournaments everyone said he was whining too. Why do you
> refer to Kasparov as brilliant in the past tense? Is he past it now? Do
> you think he'd be a sucker for your Kings Indian down the club? Dont
> tell me, you beat him already, right?
>
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 11:09:33
From: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
Bateman wrote:
> No you dont recall correctly. The move was bd4. It was not a move a
> computer would have chosen for the simple reason that it allowed
> Kasparov to draw with a perpetual check. Kasparov overlooked this
> forced draw at the time, but Deep Blue must have been aware of it. Deep
> Blue isn't programmed to make moves which Negatively affect it's
> evaluation, but at the time it played bd4 DB already had itself better,
> so why would it have played a move it would have seen as creating a
> 0.00 evaluation?
The draw was simply outside the search horizon.
IBM published the logfiles later on, and furthermore it can be easily
verified that modern programs will also play Bd4 (and miss the draw
until a lot later).
--
GCP
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 11:25:20
From: Ruud
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
Kasparov, brilliant at chess as he was, prob. was a whiner.
Why else would someone who believed he was the best player be intimidated by
such a possibility of computers being supported by other players.
It's a contradiction.
The move b3 (do I recall this correctly?) was unexpected back then, but many
engines nowadays will consider it the best move.
At some point engines were bound to overtake humans in logica.
"tin Brown" <
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 11:44:43
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
Ruud <[email protected] > wrote:
> Kasparov, brilliant at chess as he was, prob. was a whiner.
> Why else would someone who believed he was the best player be
> intimidated by such a possibility of computers being supported by other
> players.
> It's a contradiction.
No it isn't. A strong player in tandem with a strong computer is much
stronger than either on their own. See, for example,
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2461
Sumy: a recent tournament for people with computer assistance was won
by a team of two people rated USCF1685 and USCF1398 using three computers.
Other players in the tournament included two Hydra machines, one running
unattended and one running with minimal human input: neither made the
quarter-finals. Third- and fourth-placed overall were grandmasters
playing with computer assistance so the field was by no means weak.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Salted Apple (TM): it's like a tasty
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fruit but it's covered in salt!
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Oct 2005 22:41:49
From: Vasileios Zografos
Subject: Re: Game Over: Kasparov and Deep Blue
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Ruud <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Kasparov, brilliant at chess as he was, prob. was a whiner.
>>Why else would someone who believed he was the best player be
>>intimidated by such a possibility of computers being supported by other
>>players.
>>It's a contradiction.
>
>
> No it isn't. A strong player in tandem with a strong computer is much
> stronger than either on their own. See, for example,
>
> http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2461
>
> Sumy: a recent tournament for people with computer assistance was won
> by a team of two people rated USCF1685 and USCF1398 using three computers.
> Other players in the tournament included two Hydra machines, one running
> unattended and one running with minimal human input: neither made the
> quarter-finals. Third- and fourth-placed overall were grandmasters
> playing with computer assistance so the field was by no means weak.
>
>
> Dave.
>
And lets not forget Kasparov's quote: "Even if they were assisted by the
devil, that would probably be covered by the rules"
|
|
