Do you think Kasparovs claim that the human making deep blues moves also made substitute moves to avoid draws that deep blue couldn't see coming?

No, I do not believe that.  I think it was just sour grapes on his part.

C'mon. You really don't think he would want to be the first WC to lose to an uncheating computer, do you?

That been said, the conspiracy theory is just as plausible as man not landing on the moon.

Humans should be better then computers. 

alison27 wrote:

Humans should be better then computers. 

 not necessarily, computers can evaluate 2 million moves a second, humans... 2,

 certainly not in theory, a computer is amazing

that last game 6 is HIGHLY suspicious. truly suspect. kasparov played a very unwise system.

people on the moon? come on... really?

alison27 wrote:

Humans should be better then computers. 

too bad they aren't

they definately arn't better, !!!!

erik wrote:

that last game 6 is HIGHLY suspicious. truly suspect. kasparov played a very unwise system.

people on the moon? come on... really?

it seemed fine to me... what was so supicious? it was so short, most of the moves were the book opening

If IBM had nothing to hide why refuse to provide  the computer logs as requested by Kasparov.

Does it really matter? There are a handful of programs now that could beat the pants off of any human player in history. Somewhere along the way this shift was made. I don't think it makes any difference when this happened. It was a controversy at the time, but in retrospect, seems pretty silly to argue about. I don't think there is any reason to keep talking about it.

one reason to talk about it was because it was a meganational corporation with a lot of PR to gain if they won. their stock jumped significantly after the match :)

what prevented there being a human playing the entire game all along? my point being of course, the point brought up here seems immaterial. 

on a side note, computers can be VERY good at endgame since the amount of legal moves in a typical endgame is usually very low and so the chess engine can actually consider all possible moves up to a greater depth than in usual play. in fact, most chess engines actually catalog certain endgame positions in databases to speed up the "thinking" process, sort of like a human brain remembering a certain endgame pattern and being able to come up with the best solution in less time than having to grind through all the calculations.

Chess_Champion26 wrote:

they definately arn't better, !!!!

Hope this is sarcastic.

Does anyone know if Deep Blue is still around?  I would love to get clobbered by the same program that beat Kasparov :) 

As for my vote, though, I think Kasparov and IBM created a "controversy" as a PR stunt to drum up more publicity.  Logistically, IBM had nothing to win by being able to claim that they had a bunch of draw games against him; they needed to win to prove the value of their programming.

erik wrote:

one reason to talk about it was because it was a meganational corporation with a lot of PR to gain if they won. their stock jumped significantly after the match :)

Yes, this is one reason that there was a conspiracy... a decade ago!

the interesting thing is why anyone is bothered at a machine beating a human at chess. After all, we are happy to accept that machines can lift heavier weights than us; we're happy to accept that machines can travel 100m faster than the fastest man in the world; nobody is concerned that a calculator can perform mathematical calculations faster and more accurately than the best human. Why then, do people care so much if a machine beats a human at chess?

I think the main reason why Kasparov lost is because he weren't allowed to see any games played by Deep Blue before the game began. DB, on the other hand, were allowed to analyze every single game that Kasparov played.

And I wouldn't be surprised if IBM cheated, big companies like that never has the slightest of ethics.

but i still believed that human is better than machine.. machine is only created by human..machine cannot  perform that as good without human..

where do all these ideas come from that humans are better than machines and vice versa?

The point of a machine is that it is better at a specific task than a human, that is why we make tham. they can only do one thing but they do that one thing better than we ever could. The only area humans can out perform machines is in multi tasking in a very wide array of skills. i.e. we can play chess AND lift a pint glass ...