Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

game over kasparov and the machine


  • 9 months ago · Quote · #21

    aerodarts

    Aetheldred wrote:
    Ubik42 wrote:

    Does anyone have any idea how 1997 deep blue would stack up against houdini on a PC?

    Its hardware still surpsasses home PCs in power, but not in software, today's engines are more efficient in the sense that they require less powerful hardware to run. 

    Anyway, do the math, no GM can win a match against one of the most powerful engines (Rybka, Stockfish, Komodo, Houdini), while Kasparov I believe was even stronger than Deep Blue.

    Install the modern day software on Deep Blue. Then you have a super computer that goes deep and fast and with the latest software you have human like moves. Nothing can beat this new monster except Alien chess machines!

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #22

    aerodarts

    einstein99 wrote:

    Wasnt that first win a double fianchetto?

    I am sure you find the games we are talking about...

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #23

    aerodarts

    Snookslayer wrote:

    As Kasparov pondered "how could a machine make so many brilliant moves, and yet blunder into allowing a simple perpetual check" - which Kasparov actually missed. Seems fishy.

    Although corporations never do anything unethical.

     

    The game you are talking about...the machine made a human like move. Gary offered a pawn (sacrifice) and Blue did not take it and instead presented the human with a variation that would lead to a forced draw. This blew Gary's mind and he resigned! No? After this game, Gary was freaked out and ended up losing the match!

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #24

    aerodarts

    You have some Interesting rules for chess. I assume all the other rules remain the same.

    How many moves does someone have to check their own king to rescuse their king. What happens after that?

    What would be Carlsen's rating under your system?

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #25

    RonaldJosephCote

                 This match with Deep Blue was mentioned on CNN this mourning with Farid Zacharia. It was about the age of the machines. The 2nd point they mentioned was when Watson was on Jeopardy, and won.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #26

    aerodarts

    chessph wrote:

    Never saw it, not interested. He lost against a machine, so what?

    Before this defeat a machine could not beat a human a Grand Master. Many claimed that a machine could never win. Now we know that machines can play chess better than the best humans. Not a big deal? Ok, if you say so.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #27

    radyone

    aerodarts wrote:
    radyone wrote:

    The movie's also available on youtube

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBzI7y8VNCA

    Thanks for the link. For those who do not have netflix can watch it for free. I will be looking for more chess movies to post on the forum.

    HBO's documentary on Bobby Fischer is another great movie, for those who didn't got the chance to see it, it's an amazing story

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1777551/

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #28

    petrip

    Snookslayer wrote:

    As Kasparov pondered "how could a machine make so many brilliant moves, and yet blunder into allowing a simple perpetual check" - which Kasparov actually missed. Seems fishy.

    Although corporations never do anything unethical.

    Feed that position to any 98 computer chess program ans let think long eough and they will produce same move. I tried the situation on Stockfish and in about 2 seconds it settles for Be4.

     

    Companies  may well be unethical but in this case there is no reason to suspect anything. Here is then FEN if someone if intersted to see on a another program

    r1r1q1k1/6p1/3b1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 37

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #29

    RonaldJosephCote

             petrip; your fogetting the element of time. Stockfish wasn't around 30 yrs ago. 

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #30

    aerodarts

    petrip wrote:
    Snookslayer wrote:

    As Kasparov pondered "how could a machine make so many brilliant moves, and yet blunder into allowing a simple perpetual check" - which Kasparov actually missed. Seems fishy.

    Although corporations never do anything unethical.

    Feed that position to any 98 computer chess program ans let think long eough and they will produce same move. I tried the situation on Stockfish and in about 2 seconds it settles for Be4.

     

    Companies  may well be unethical but in this case there is no reason to suspect anything. Here is then FEN if someone if intersted to see on a another program

    r1r1q1k1/6p1/3b1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp5/2P4P/R1B2QP1/R5K1 w - - 0 37

    You bring up a good point...because Gary K. said Deep Blue made a move like a human and then resigned! Crazy! The game was dead draw by prepetual check. So the move unnerved the world champ so much he lost a game that was a draw and ended up losing the match.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #31

    aerodarts

    tigerprowl wrote:

    It's not a big deal because it's not something worth glorifying.  A car goes faster than a human.  OMG, stop the presses.

     

    Yes we build machines that can out run us, but does the car drive itself? See what the big deal is? When cars can start driving without humans at the wheel then Artificial Agent that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success will be a big lead into the future and how we deal with it is a good point.
     
    I enjoy driving my car because I am in control. If an Artificial Agent takes my place and I have to ride shotgun ..that will be a sad day! How do I deal with depression?! By then there will be a little purple pill that will make me not give a darn about such matter...what say you Tiger on the prowl?
     
    PS: News Flash! I just read that in 2005 a Stanford robot won the DARPA Grand Challenge by driving autonomously for 131 miles along an unrehearsed desert trail.[35] Two years later, a team from CMU won the DARPA Urban Challenge when their vehicle autonomously navigated 55 miles in an urban environment while adhering to traffic hazards and all traffic laws.
     
    Please pass me one purple pills..please!
  • 9 months ago · Quote · #32

    petrip

    RonaldJosephCote wrote:

             petrip; your fogetting the element of time. Stockfish wasn't around 30 yrs ago. 

    But deep blue for very powerful, both in HW ans SW. And evaluation of situation is not that complex, perpetualcheck draw  is easy enough.  So 2 seconds todays machine  is fair comparison for about 1 min 30 secs (average time available dunno how much was spent atually on this move) for 30 CPU system with  over 400 ASIC-accelerators back then. 200 million positions/second (which is more than Fritz did in 2006 against Kramnik)

    Also I just read NM Heiseman article about it and he said that in -98 commercial computer found the same move. Running on not a monster HW obivously

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #33

    RonaldJosephCote

             OK, you got me, you win.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #34

    halfgreek1963

    Nothing more entertaining than watching dorks argue.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #35

    aerodarts

    halfgreek1963 wrote:

    Nothing more entertaining than watching dorks argue.

    The 300 greeks were 100% greek history books claim. Where does you put you halfgreek1963? A half dork?

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #36

    Jed_Leland

    btickler wrote:
    iLoveCarlsen wrote:

    Carlsen would've beaten 1997 deep blue, for sure.  Even if Carlsen lost one game, he would only go harder and destroy it.

    A meaningless claim, much like the various "Capablanca would have beaten Fischer" claims, etc.

    I agree. It's something we'll never know. Carlsen doesn't seem eager to play any computer; maybe he's more realistic than Kasparov.

  • 9 months ago · Quote · #37

    Jed_Leland

    chessph wrote:

    Never saw it, not interested. He lost against a machine, so what?

    It's interesting because of Kasparov's reaction: he couldn't stand to admit that Deep Blue won -- without any proof, he accused the people behind it of cheating.

    Do corporations sometimes do unethical things? Of course. Does that automatically mean that this happened in the match? Let's see some proof.


Back to Top

Post your reply: