Winning or losing against the chess engines is useless. I think you are forgetting the purpose of the deep blue engine. It was built to understand if computers can ever surpass the humans and it proved that yes, it can and it will. Now the world's strongest computers are easily 500 points above the best players.
Magnus should play 1997 Deep Blue.
Sort:
No human will ever surpass the top chess engines, and they'll only get stronger.
RopemakerStreet wrote:
No human will ever surpass the top chess engines, and they'll only get stronger.
yes but against 1997 Deep Blue. The exact hardware and software configuration that Kasparov faced.
Kasparov had a serious limitation against deep blue that he did not face with any other human opponent.
that limitation was lack of preparation for the match. Against human opponents there is a history of games that can be examined prior to play in the match. there was no history of play on the part of deep blue. Kasparov had to go into the match cold.
When Kasparov voiced this concern and asked for any pertinent information about how deep blue played. He was denied, ignored, and made to look like the villain by IBM.
Dec 30, 2023
0
#6
RopemakerStreet wrote:
No human will ever surpass the top chess engines, and they'll only get stronger.
You might not be aware that earlier this year, recruitment opened for clinical trials of implants to augment the human brain.
Deep Blue was in fact 2 chess engines and could only be operated by a human user, who was needed to help prune the lines to be analyzed. This is because one computer was built for positional analysis and the second computer was built for tactical opportunities.
When Kasparov faced Deep Blue he wasn’t just facing two chess computers. He was also playing against GM Joel Benjamin who helped the two computers with their analysis. Today, this process is called centaur chess.
When Kasparov faced Deep Blue he wasn’t just facing two chess computers. He was also playing against GM Joel Benjamin who helped the two computers with their analysis. Today, this process is called centaur chess.
Dec 30, 2023
0
#8
putshort wrote:
Deep Blue was in fact 2 chess engines and could only be operated by a human user, who was needed to help prune the lines to be analyzed. This is because one computer was built for positional analysis and the second computer was built for tactical opportunities.
When Kasparov faced Deep Blue he wasn’t just facing two chess computers. He was also playing against GM Joel Benjamin who helped the two computers with their analysis. Today, this process is called centaur chess.
When Kasparov faced Deep Blue he wasn’t just facing two chess computers. He was also playing against GM Joel Benjamin who helped the two computers with their analysis. Today, this process is called centaur chess.
This isn't correct. Joel Benjamin was IBMs consultant GM. Kasparov made the unsupported accusation that the Deep Blue team were cheating by using a GM alongside the machine during a match.
It is true. See the documentary on Deep Blue, it explains it all. How do you even pretend to know?
chessterd5 wrote:
Kasparov had a serious limitation against deep blue that he did not face with any other human opponent.
that limitation was lack of preparation for the match. Against human opponents there is a history of games that can be examined prior to play in the match. there was no history of play on the part of deep blue. Kasparov had to go into the match cold.
When Kasparov voiced this concern and asked for any pertinent information about how deep blue played. He was denied, ignored, and made to look like the villain by IBM.
Kasparov demanded the protocol of what the engine calculated. Of course, IBM didn't agree. I don't think Karpov or any other human player would have agreed to giving him a summary of all their thoughts and ideas. Kasparov's main limitation was that he couldn't intimidate the machine like other players...
This is the name of the documentary that explains how each one of the computers of deep blue work, called stacks, and how it requires human intervention to prune the analysis: Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine
putshort wrote:
This is the name of the documentary that explains how each one of the computers of deep blue work, called stacks, and how it requires human intervention to prune the analysis: Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine
Don't be ridiculous. The whole point was man vs machine, stop saying nonsense. That claim is 100% false and I would consider any more attempts to argue it pure trolling.
In 1997 Kasparov played Deep Blue in a 6-round match and narrowly lost.
How would Magnus fare against this exact computer? Would he wipe the floor with it? Would he be destroyed?
Magnus should play 1997 Deep Blue. IBM is allowed to update their openings similar to how they had against Kasparov, but not terrabytes of cloud data added.
Magnus should make a solemn declaration that he will limit any practice to previous versions of Deep Blue and will not undertake any serious study about how Deep Blue might be weak against humans, as Kasparov had much less opportunity to do this considering it was all new tech.
Very possibly neither Magnus nor Kasparov would be too enthusiastic about this - Kasparov due to his entire legacy being on the line and him having no control over it, Carlsen currently enjoying the idea that he is the best player to have ever existed, leading chess performance into new ground, never seen before, would be a huge shock to his ego if he lost.
There is also a valid objection that people play differently against computers to against actual people. Computers evaluate Tal's games as abysmal today for example because of his sacrifices, yet he repeatedly destroyed the world's best by playing that way.
Yet Tal would adapt if he knew he was playing a computer, and could play at a world class level without his famous sacrifices, so while there would be this effect it wouldn't be that egregious, it would still be pretty accurate even with Tal.
A computer is a chess-playing entity of a certain ability regardless of any other observations about it.
If Kasparov can beat everyone in 1999 except Kramnik because Kramnik's Berlin defence was giving him unexpected trouble, does that invalidate Kramnik's win? (I know Kramnik has made contentious and controversial claims lately, not relevant to this). No, it just means that Kramnik was able to pull it out of the bag due to the unusual properties of how he was able to play. All's fair in chess. Similarly, it's not the be all and end all for Kasparov if Carlsen easily wins or vice versa, however like every chess championship it would mean something.