FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Wasnt that first win a double fianchetto?
I am sure you find the games we are talking about...
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!
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?
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.
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.
The movie's also available on youtube
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
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
petrip; your fogetting the element of time. Stockfish wasn't around 30 yrs ago.
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.
It's not a big deal because it's not something worth glorifying. A car goes faster than a human. OMG, stop the presses.
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
OK, you got me, you win.
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?
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.
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.
This was the first time a machine had won a match against a great player like Kasparov. The programs have progessed to the point that they are used for preparation and anaysis..etc.
So what? The next time you get on an airplane and look in the cockpit, there might not be any human pilots! Will you stay onboard? hahah
You trust a machine more that a human pilot? That is one answer to the So What remark! There are more. Go ask So Wesley!
He was psyched out by the machine and forgot that programs have bugs and glitches and can make mistakes.