Computers are impossible to beat I can never beat the expert computer.
what happened in the second game of kasparov vs Deep bue? because he lost?
Sort:
I'm not sure if it was the second game, but Kasparov claimed that a particular move could not have been made by a computer, and accused the IBM team of cheating. But he presumed far too much. While one can make general statements like "computers are better at tactics than long-term strategy" and "computers are better in closed positions than open positions", you can't just look at a particular move and say, "it's impossible that any computer could make a move this brilliant." While a computer that doesn't search too far ahead will fall into traps, a computer that searches far enough ahead will eventually find the right move, and will have the appearance of long-term thinking. Kasparov was simply playing a machine that could see farther ahead than any machine he had played before.
He easily won the first game, and then was "crushed" in the second
Today we ótmis chess programs, but back then!? 97
He accused IBM of cheating in the second game because of a 'non-computer' move. The reasoning is that the machine should be material hungry, rather than thinking about long term strategy. However, when Kasparov attempted to hang material in exchange for active counterplay, Deep Blue didn't take the bait. Instead it played for a long term plan.
Did they cheat? I don't know. I am not qualified to make the call one way or another.
Plenty of people, with vastly superior knowledge to mine, offer compelling arguments for and against.
It's pretty well known that GMs don't like to lose though.Perhaps a case of sour grapes? Again,I'm not skilled enough to answer that.
Susan Polgar jokes that she had never beaten a healthy man (because when she beat one they had not slept properly, or had the flu...etc) lol.
've heard that there might have been a scam by IBM, which could have been human interference!
game kasparov vs Deep blue: