|
On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch...
That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again.
|
On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again.
Erm, what?
There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAMES started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB.
And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car.
Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch?
Oh and:
On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though?
...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game.
|
|
I think Kasparov only has himself to blame for losing to Deep Blue - he hadnt played the Caro-Kann since he was 15 years old then loses to a well known counter that even 15 year olds would never lose to...its a bit lame really. He basically gimped himself right out of the opening by getting the move order wrong, which is inexcusable at super-GM level anyway.
|
On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game.
Sorry, I don't quite understand what you are writing about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer)
EDIT: I think perhaps you mis-interpreted my post? But I fail to understand where I mentioned that there was ONLY one game vs Deep Blue. All I mentioned was that Kasparov lost a match to Deep Blue. A match consists of games. You are best aren't you LOL.
|
On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game.
Kasparov won a 1996 match, lost the 1997 match. He lost a key game in the 1997 match due to what he alleges is human intervention (ie a human helping the computer in a key move), and his reasoning is quite good. There's no hard evidence but a lot of circumstational stuff, along with a basic understanding of what moves deep blue was capable of.
edit: thats actually 3200 ELO for Rybka
That said computers are better than humans by far now. An average quad core setup gets 3100 ELO or so according to the regular official computer tournament rankings.
|
On October 05 2009 10:49 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game. Kasparov won a 1996 match, lost the 1997 match. He lost a key game in the 1997 match due to what he alleges is human intervention (ie a human helping the computer in a key move), and his reasoning is quite good. There's no hard evidence but a lot of circumstational stuff, along with a basic understanding of what moves deep blue was capable of. That said computers are better than humans by far now. An average quad core setup gets 3100 ELO or so according to the regular official computer tournament rankings.
Since Chess has a strong science/mathematics component to it, computers will become stronger and stronger. After a while, it's like saying my calculator can multiply 16781379817931 by 2298329083203 faster than any human can. Who really cares LOL.
|
On October 05 2009 10:52 ssj114 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 10:49 cz wrote:On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game. Kasparov won a 1996 match, lost the 1997 match. He lost a key game in the 1997 match due to what he alleges is human intervention (ie a human helping the computer in a key move), and his reasoning is quite good. There's no hard evidence but a lot of circumstational stuff, along with a basic understanding of what moves deep blue was capable of. That said computers are better than humans by far now. An average quad core setup gets 3100 ELO or so according to the regular official computer tournament rankings. Since Chess has a strong science/mathematics component to it, computers will become stronger and stronger. After a while, it's like saying my calculator can multiply 16781379817931 by 2298329083203 faster than any human can. Who really cares LOL.
This is a thread that has to do with chess, computer engine skill came up.
Who really cares LOL what you think. Please go back to posting in youtube comments.
|
being a chess fan and player myself since I was like 8 i can say that even if IBM's Deep Blue had the help of other GMs (which it obviously did) kasparov lost that series at 1997 because of a super blunder that he made... those matches seemed like he didnt play like he used to. As someone said the caro-kann play was also one of the reasons.. and btw... now at 2009 computers beating super gms is something that is pretty obvious it would happen if this kind of tournament happened again.. imo rybka 3 at a super cpu would destroy the likes of anand, topalov, carlsen and all the others
|
On October 05 2009 10:54 Gota wrote: being a chess fan and player myself since I was like 8 i can say that even if IBM's Deep Blue had the help of other GMs (which it obviously did) kasparov lost that series at 1997 because of a super blunder that he made... those matches seemed like he didnt play like he used to. As someone said the caro-kann play was also one of the reasons.. and btw... now at 2009 computers beating super gms is something that is pretty obvious it would happen if this kind of tournament happened again.. imo rybka 3 at a super cpu would destroy the likes of anand, topalov, carlsen and all the others
Part of Kasparov's edge has always come from psychological intimidation of him sitting at the chessboard against his opponent, in the same way that an average pro starcraft player would play a lot worse against Flash than against an average terran B-teamer, just because of nerves and intimidation / expectation to lose. Also Kasparov is a huge tilt-monkey who gets angry easily. The computer obviously is great against that type of player: it doesn't care who he is, and it never gets annoyed itself.
|
BTW Kasparov has written a bunch of books, though I've only read one. That was about his 1985 match with Karpov and has stuff about Deep Blue. It was written soon after 1997 I think and is a good read.
|
On October 05 2009 10:54 Gota wrote: being a chess fan and player myself since I was like 8 i can say that even if IBM's Deep Blue had the help of other GMs (which it obviously did) kasparov lost that series at 1997 because of a super blunder that he made... those matches seemed like he didnt play like he used to. As someone said the caro-kann play was also one of the reasons.. and btw... now at 2009 computers beating super gms is something that is pretty obvious it would happen if this kind of tournament happened again.. imo rybka 3 at a super cpu would destroy the likes of anand, topalov, carlsen and all the others
Rybka 3 has 3200 estimated ELO on average from 5+ computer chess engine tournaments on just an average quad core system that you could put together for $400-500.
|
On October 05 2009 10:49 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game. Kasparov won a 1996 match, lost the 1997 match. He lost a key game in the 1997 match due to what he alleges is human intervention (ie a human helping the computer in a key move), and his reasoning is quite good. There's no hard evidence but a lot of circumstational stuff, along with a basic understanding of what moves deep blue was capable of. edit: thats actually 3200 ELO for Rybka That said computers are better than humans by far now. An average quad core setup gets 3100 ELO or so according to the regular official computer tournament rankings. from what i was reading on wiki(if its true) they edited the computer to block a move that kasparov had used to beat it with twice before or something? thats def cheating..
|
On October 04 2009 04:14 Klive5ive wrote: Kasparov is one of the greatest geniuses of the 21st century. Jaedong... is a Starcraft player. Let's not lose too much perspective here please.
I don't see the difference!
|
On October 05 2009 11:11 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 10:49 cz wrote:On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game. Kasparov won a 1996 match, lost the 1997 match. He lost a key game in the 1997 match due to what he alleges is human intervention (ie a human helping the computer in a key move), and his reasoning is quite good. There's no hard evidence but a lot of circumstational stuff, along with a basic understanding of what moves deep blue was capable of. edit: thats actually 3200 ELO for Rybka That said computers are better than humans by far now. An average quad core setup gets 3100 ELO or so according to the regular official computer tournament rankings. from what i was reading on wiki(if its true) they edited the computer to block a move that kasparov had used to beat it with twice before or something? thats def cheating.. Um, not if they did it in between games. That's allowed. Kasparov was accusing them of subbing in human chess players during the games.
|
From memory, Kaspy's argument was over one specific move in the first game he lost, wherin DB played a move to deny Kaspy two critical central squares, and block up the position, stagnating any potential counterplay from the world champion, which allowed the superior technical abilities of Rybka to shine INSTEAD of accepting a sacrificed pawn. The argument goes that only a human could find/play that move, because it is impossible for a computer to analyse the advantages of such a move in such a position (and it is). A GM only knows the value through personal experience and conceptual understanding, which of course a computer lacks. The counter-argument runs that as DB calculates every possible move combination very deeply, it was able to find that such a move would lead to a more advantageous position than the "normal computer" moves in said position. Computers are notoriously greedy when it comes to free material, because their deep calculating abilities allow them to defend positions via finding resources hidden in the position that are beyong human calculation. Basically, they can walk a finer line than a human.
The general consensus amongst high level chess players is that yes, there was GM intervention mid game.
|
On October 05 2009 10:54 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 10:52 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 10:49 cz wrote:On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game. Kasparov won a 1996 match, lost the 1997 match. He lost a key game in the 1997 match due to what he alleges is human intervention (ie a human helping the computer in a key move), and his reasoning is quite good. There's no hard evidence but a lot of circumstational stuff, along with a basic understanding of what moves deep blue was capable of. That said computers are better than humans by far now. An average quad core setup gets 3100 ELO or so according to the regular official computer tournament rankings. Since Chess has a strong science/mathematics component to it, computers will become stronger and stronger. After a while, it's like saying my calculator can multiply 16781379817931 by 2298329083203 faster than any human can. Who really cares LOL. This is a thread that has to do with chess, computer engine skill came up. Who really cares LOL what you think. Please go back to posting in youtube comments.
And who cares at all what you think LOL. Go back to posting in Starcraft comments, NOT Chess comments LOL.
EDIT: By the way, you are the best. But please re-read the context of my previous post, and you'll see why your reply was not on. In the context of what I was writing, I was implying that watching human skill is more exciting than watching computer skill. Anyway, I'm sure you'll flame me more, which is why I won't bother reading this thread again LOL (or posting ever again, since I'll probably get IP banned or something LOL). Later mate.
|
On October 05 2009 13:40 ssj114 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 10:54 cz wrote:On October 05 2009 10:52 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 10:49 cz wrote:On October 05 2009 09:52 CubEdIn wrote:On October 05 2009 09:31 ssj114 wrote:On October 05 2009 09:29 keV. wrote:On October 05 2009 01:46 arb wrote:On October 05 2009 00:34 CubEdIn wrote: Friend of mine said that Kasparov lost to the computer, while JD can easily beat 2-3 computers AT ONCE. Therefore JD > Kasparov.
...foolproof point imo. No. The fact that a computer can see so far ahead it can beat a human at a game of incredibly high thinking, would mean JD would be read like a book and destroyed easily. + Show Spoiler +Yeah i know that was a troll post but it rly bothered me Kasparov totally fucked up his match with Deep Blue, still lame they wouldn't give him a rematch... That's because there was human intervention in that Deep Blue match (that is, they cheated). Why do you think they quickly dis-assembled the machine straight after the match? It's never been seen or heard of again. Erm, what? There hasn't been one game vs Deep Blue. There's been a game in 1996 where Kasparov won, and the 1997 GAME S started with Kasparov winning, and then LOSING a game to DB, then getting to draw 3 times in a row and losing the last game. So final score was 2-1 for DB. And the only point was to prove that computer CAN beat a Super-GM at chess. That you CAN create enough algorithms.That it CAN be done. What's the point in playing something that uses brute force to calculate 10 million moves ahead? It's like trying to outrun a car. Yes I would root for Kasparov also, but seriously, what's the point of a rematch? Oh and: On October 05 2009 07:38 DamageControL wrote:On October 05 2009 06:39 jfazz wrote: Actually Klackon, high level chess play from a young age is recognised as a form of genius, so yeah, he was. why is it MORE genius than starcraft though? ...for the same reason it's more genius then checkers. It's a much deeper game. Kasparov won a 1996 match, lost the 1997 match. He lost a key game in the 1997 match due to what he alleges is human intervention (ie a human helping the computer in a key move), and his reasoning is quite good. There's no hard evidence but a lot of circumstational stuff, along with a basic understanding of what moves deep blue was capable of. That said computers are better than humans by far now. An average quad core setup gets 3100 ELO or so according to the regular official computer tournament rankings. Since Chess has a strong science/mathematics component to it, computers will become stronger and stronger. After a while, it's like saying my calculator can multiply 16781379817931 by 2298329083203 faster than any human can. Who really cares LOL. This is a thread that has to do with chess, computer engine skill came up. Who really cares LOL what you think. Please go back to posting in youtube comments. And who cares at all what you think LOL. Go back to posting in Starcraft comments, NOT Chess comments LOL. EDIT: By the way, you are the best. But please re-read the context of my previous post, and you'll see why your reply was not on. In the context of what I was writing, I was implying that watching human skill is more exciting than watching computer skill. Anyway, I'm sure you'll flame me more, which is why I won't bother reading this thread again LOL (or posting ever again, since I'll probably get IP banned or something LOL). Later mate.
The context of your post was visible to your eyes only, and was written in the style of a 12-year-old on youtube or possibly a new user to twitter. You managed to both come off as immature and an idiot and attempted to de-legitimize my comment by suggesting that it was irrelevant in an insulting way.
And then you get angry when you got bit back. Please.
|
IBM pretty obviously and shamefully cheated by subbing in human moves to counter Kasparov's anti-computer strategy when they noticed it. After the match, Kasparov wanted to see the logs for the match to see how the computer made what he rightfully considered a decision that was made by humans in response to what he was doing, but IBM refused and immediately disassembled Deep Blue so that the evidence was destroyed.
Anyway, chess will eventually be 'solved'. Did you know that checkers was 'solved' a couple years ago? It's true - there is now an algorithm computers can run to play checkers from start to finish, regardless of what your opponent does, and never lose. If you play masterfully too, it'll be a draw, but the computer will never, ever lose.
Chess is several magnitudes of moves deeper than checkers, but it's only a matter of time. Probably 50 years or so from now, chess will be a solved game too.
|
|
|
|
|