I tried to make a comparison between Jaedong and Garry Kasparov, who used to be chess No. 1 for a long time. Actually, these two have pretty much in common...
I. GARRY KASPAROV:
Full Name: Garry Kimovich Weinstein Born: 13 April 1963 (Age 46) Nationality: Russian/Azeri/Jewish Homeland: Baku, Azerbaijan ELO Peak: 2851 (July 1999) ELO Currently: Not rated (2812 on last FIDE entry) Nicknames: The Killer, Kaspy Status: Retired since 10 March 2005
Major Achievements: - World Champion (1985-2000). - #1 Highest rated player in history (1990-2005). - #1 on FIDE rating lists (1986-2005). - Most consecutive pro-tournament victories (15 wins, 1981-1990). - Eight-time winner of prestigious Linares tournament. - Eight gold medals of Chess Olympiad (with USSR/Russian team).
Openings:
- Sicilian Defence, Scheveningen Variation - King's Indian Defence, Classical Variation - Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin ...and many more
Current Duty:
- Coach of promising Norwegian player, Magnus Carlsen. - Active in politics as leader of "The Other Russia" (Putin's opposition). - Frequent on-line commentator during top-class chess events.
Style:
Kasparov is an agressive risk-taker, often aiming for double-edged positions and complicated games. With brilliant tactics and calculations, he often wins through combinational flurry of threats. He is also know for excellent opening preparation and re-inventing oldschool set-ups like Scotch Game.
Controversy:
Kasparov played his first WCh match in 1984, under very strange regulations. There was no game limit then, meaning the match could be played virtually forever if both players were to score draws all the time. However, Gazza's opponent, these days' champion Anatoly Karpov won 4 out of 9 initial games, and Kasparov seemed to be wiped out (first player to get 6 wins would clinch the title). After 17 draws, Karpov scored again, but Kaspy held out and won games 32, 47 and 48 (there were 40 draws in this slugfest). The match was finally ended without final result, by FIDE* President, Florencio Campomanes, who was worried about players' health (by this time, Karpov was reported to lose approximately 22lbs of weight). Though Kasparov was still 3-5 down at that point, he always believed the momentum was on his side, and he could win the whole match. This lead to big developement of hatred between him and Campomanes (and FIDE as well).
In 1993 Kasparov refused to play under FIDE rules and created his own chess organisation - PCA**. This was largely due to lack of financial rewards FIDE rules provided to World Championship cycle. Though Kasparov was banished from FIDE lists, he was still widely considered as World Champion, especially when new FIDE WCh format turned into average-players' fest. "The Schizm" lasted till 2006, when last PCA champ battled out FIDE World Champion in reunification match.
Nemesis:
Anatoly Karpov used to be Kasparov's lifelong opponent. "The Two Mr K" played over 200 official games, and despite Kasparov's overall success in taking/defending his World Championship, the overall score is pretty even to this day. Lately, Karpov, who is still an active tournament player, lost to Kasparov in showmatch 3-9.
Badass Quote:
"It will be Short and it will be short." (Kasparov in 1993, when it turned out that he will fight England's Nigel Short in WCh Match).
Immortal Game:
Fun Video:
Master And Apprentice:
Kasparov and Mikhail Botvinnik, former World Champion and Gazza's mentor.
* - FIDE - Fédération Internationale des Échecs = World Chess Federation ** - PCA - Professional Chess Association (by GK, disbanded in 1996)
II. JAEDONG:
Full Name: Lee Jae Dong Born: 9 January 1990 (Age 19) Nationality: Korean Homeland: Ulsan, South Korea ELO Peak: 3459.3 (September 2009) ELO Currently: 3124.0 Nicknames: Legend Killer, JD Status: Active
Major Achievements:
- Three-time OSL winner (EVER 2007, Batoo 2009, Bacchus 2009). - GOMTV winner (2008). - WCG Korea winner (2008). - First Progamer to break 3.000 ELO points barrier (August 2009). - Highest ZvZ winning percentage in history (88 wins, 26 loses, 77.19%) - Nine #1 appearances on TeamLiquid Power Ranking.
Openings:
- 3 Hatch Muta into 5 Hatch Hydra - 3 Hatch Lurker/Ling - 2 Hatch Muta/Ling ...and many more
Current Duty:
- Re-signed with Hwaseung OZ. - Soon to recieve Lasik Surgery due to some trouble with sight. - Gaming like crazy to prepare for upcoming season.
Style:
Jaedong is an agressive, somewheat micro-oriented player, though his macro is by no means weak anyway. Depending on excelent agility and game sense, he can pull off virtually any strategy, from all-in rushes to long, Zerg-management style battles. From time to time, he shows how to pull out something unorthodox.
Controversy:
August 2009 saw Jaedong carrying his Hwaseung OZ to Proleague final. "Legend Killer" did this almost single-handely and was expected to be the biggest threat for SK Telecom 1, the final obstacle in the championship run. However, JD adopted weird, weird strategy for his 1st game against fantasy, going Guardians and skipping his favourite, fearful Muta-harass. Despite decent micro, his strategic failure brought him devastating defeat, when Terran pulled out massive Tank counterattack. Next day, JD was an absolute favourite to win ZvZ against somehow mediocre Hyuk. Yet, he again went for dubious build, 12Hatch against 9Pool speed. It turned into BO defeat, but many commentators stated that he could win easily if he played safe. Tyrant's last chance of comeback was rematch against fantasy in Day 2 Ace Match. This time he was cheesed to death by Neo Medusa's fake wall that was in fact BBS rush with 1Rax hidden in heart of the map. 0-3 result obviously raised immortal questions about "JD slumping".
In September 2009 Jaedong declared free agency. His father speculated about possible JD's retirement, and expressed his dissatisfaction about his son's salary (which is kept at low level due to some irrelevant KeSPA rules). However, the regulations and general lack of serious transfer bids forced JD to re-sign with Hwaseung OZ with just little more money paid for his efforts. As a result, we got one more reason to say that KeSPA sucks (Note how similar it is to Kasparov's cause).
Nemesis:
Though Jaedong developed some nice rivalries with Flash and Stork (the latter being the only progamer, who has positive score vs JD in good number of games), only Kim Taek-Yong is worth calling him Jaedong's Nemesis. Still, Bisu has very much to prove against JD, especially since he has no OSL titles so far, and his famous PvZ is yet to be tested. However, recently Bisu beat Jaedong in a Proleague showmatch.
Badass Quote:
"I rate his defense 2/10." (Jaedong in 2009, in double Bisu/JD interview, about Bisu's defensive capabilities).
it's true that kasparov is the radical attacker, karpov the invunerable defender, so I guess jeadong fits into the attacker mould. btw, the kingscrusher videos are normally quite good, but this one had really bad audio. Short is presently doing quite well, but as he has admitted himself, he is competing and easily winning the second tier of tournaments because it earns him more money.
edit: btw, in my opinion, kasparov wins hands down in a contest.
When I first saw the thread title, I thought it was going to be a TL computer simulated showmatch between the two. I was mildly disappointed. Nice write up though.
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.
'Bisu has alot to prove vs JD, since he has no OSL titles'. I guess 3 MSL titles means nothing. Not saying MSL>OSL, but 3 MSL titles is something only people like Nada, Oov, and Savior have done, so its quite an accomplishment.
Fucking awesome first post, I really enjoyed watching the Kasparov game you embedded there (even if it was impossible to hear the commentary). I'm not familiar with competitive chess but I love the game, so some insight into its drama/Kasparov was very interesting to read. Thanks!
In a theoretical battle of greats, I would pick Kasparov simply because of his long reign of dominance over the chess world. I'd say Kasparov's dominance is very similar to Nada's. Oh, and cool first post.
Jaedong and Bisu are also incredibly even. Infact, with the recent showmatch, they are now exactly 7-7 in wins against each other. With these two, a game can go either way. Also, the MSL is equal to the OSL. The OSL has not been "the superior league" for many years now and both leagues receive equal coverage nowadays.
Anyway, while Jaedong is incredible and will likely remain a favourite for most of his career, I doubt he will be as dominant as Kasparov due to Jaedong having competitors even during his prime. That is why it is unlikely he will ever be considered a bonjwa (although, to be honest, nobody really knows what exactly constitues a bonjwa).
Why do you say Bisu's PvZ has yet to be tested? Because his wins are rapes? He's faced a bunch of great Zergs, including Jaedong, over and over again in his career.
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.
Kasparov was a great critical thinker who was great at a game. Jaedong is a great critical thinker who is great at a game.
Okay I respect Jaedong's current dominating status as much as the next guy....but if you think there's even a discussion to be had you either know nothing about chess or you are a blind Jaedong fanboy. I guess you could say they're both badass, but that's it. Kasparov is without any question the more dominant at his game.
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.
yeah seriously. I'm a huge fan of starcraft, but chess is a much deeper game than starcraft. It was a decent post, but the two games are on such different levels...
On October 04 2009 06:08 Tom Phoenix wrote: Jaedong and Bisu are also incredibly even. Infact, with the recent showmatch, they are now exactly 7-7 in wins against each other. With these two, a game can go either way. Also, the MSL is equal to the OSL. The OSL has not been "the superior league" for many years now and both leagues receive equal coverage nowadays.
Anyway, while Jaedong is incredible and will likely remain a favourite for most of his career, I doubt he will be as dominant as Kasparov due to Jaedong having competitors even during his prime. That is why it is unlikely he will ever be considered a bonjwa (although, to be honest, nobody really knows what exactly constitues a bonjwa).
This isn't true.
It won't be true until you have things that make the OSL what it is... things like the Golden/Platinum/Diamond Mouse, the OSL curse, and the places where rivalries are actually born.
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.
Kasparov was a great critical thinker who was great at a game. Jaedong is a great critical thinker who is great at a game.
Let's not lose too much perspective here please.
what perspective is being lost? kasparov's mastery of chess much more akin to genius than jaedong's ability to play a computer game.
On October 04 2009 06:08 Tom Phoenix wrote: Jaedong and Bisu are also incredibly even. Infact, with the recent showmatch, they are now exactly 7-7 in wins against each other. With these two, a game can go either way. Also, the MSL is equal to the OSL. The OSL has not been "the superior league" for many years now and both leagues receive equal coverage nowadays.
Anyway, while Jaedong is incredible and will likely remain a favourite for most of his career, I doubt he will be as dominant as Kasparov due to Jaedong having competitors even during his prime. That is why it is unlikely he will ever be considered a bonjwa (although, to be honest, nobody really knows what exactly constitues a bonjwa).
This isn't true.
It won't be true until you have things that make the OSL what it is... things like the Golden/Platinum/Diamond Mouse, the OSL curse, and the places where rivalries are actually born.
OSL has always inspired bigger matches... ALWAYS.
oh right savior vs. bisu took place in an osl. oh wait. in recent years the msl has had just as much prestige as an osl. do you honestly think that the golden/platinum/diamond mouse are representative of a tournament's prestige? the only reason the msl does not have a golden mouse is because nada/oov had already won 3 osls before its advent.
Awesome thread...really cool info about kasparov. Voted Kasparov, merely because being #1 ranked in anything for 15+ years is kind of a big deal. Also, lost 22~ pounds from playing chess? Fuck, that is hardcore as hell.
On October 04 2009 06:08 Tom Phoenix wrote: Jaedong and Bisu are also incredibly even. Infact, with the recent showmatch, they are now exactly 7-7 in wins against each other. With these two, a game can go either way. Also, the MSL is equal to the OSL. The OSL has not been "the superior league" for many years now and both leagues receive equal coverage nowadays.
Anyway, while Jaedong is incredible and will likely remain a favourite for most of his career, I doubt he will be as dominant as Kasparov due to Jaedong having competitors even during his prime. That is why it is unlikely he will ever be considered a bonjwa (although, to be honest, nobody really knows what exactly constitues a bonjwa).
This isn't true.
It won't be true until you have things that make the OSL what it is... things like the Golden/Platinum/Diamond Mouse, the OSL curse, and the places where rivalries are actually born.
OSL has always inspired bigger matches... ALWAYS.
As I said, you are a few years late. Many of the top players (including the bonjwas) have made their debuts in the MSL and some of the most influential games in progaming history were played there.
These are no longer the old KPGA days when the MSL was a minor league. It has gained a lot of prestige and coverage since then and the two are preety much equal in scale nowadays. So the thought that "OSL>MSL" is seriously outdated at this point.
On October 04 2009 03:53 SiZ.FaNtAsY wrote: Great effort, but I really hate when people try to make these kinds of comparisons...
Yeah, kasparov and jaedong are not even comperable at any rate at all
They clearly are comparable. The article did just that after all.
Ok you can. You can say that Jaedong is to Starcraft what Kasparov is to chess (even though it may not be 100% true, you CAN say that). But you CAN NOT say that Jaedong > Kasparov. Because it's just not true. No matter what aspect of their respective domains you are comparing, Kasparov has the upper hand.
Also it's chess. Everyone who says starcraft > chess should wait and see if starcraft is still being played in the year 3000. Yes?
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.
Kasparov was a great critical thinker who was great at a game. Jaedong is a great critical thinker who is great at a game.
Let's not lose too much perspective here please.
what perspective is being lost? kasparov's mastery of chess much more akin to genius than jaedong's ability to play a computer game.
Im sorry, but Jaedongs not dominated nearly as long as any of the Bonjwas. Trying to compare him to kasparov is quite frankly, insulting.
I would compare Kasparov to someone like Savior or NaDa because Jaedong still have A LOT of competitors like Flash/Stork, up and coming Zerg Calm/Effort, Bisu and Fantasy too. But I think putting Garry Kasparov as Savior would match more because he only had one rival and that's Nal_ra. So Nal_ra can be counted as Anatoly Karpov. Jaedong still have a lot to prove.
Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong.
If we compress the time frame 10x or so, maybe it works. In that case, Flash would be Bobby Fischer.
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 have to agree with this. Despite how badass Jaedong is, his genius can't be compared to Kasparov's. The main reason being he wins most of his games through pure mechanics, not necessarily genius.
Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong
Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career.
I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE?
Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong
Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career.
I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE?
Dude, Kasparov had 2800+ ELO consistently - perhaps the equivalent of ELO 2300+ in TLPD. When I say "consistently", I mean he maintained that ELO for years. Not for a few weeks, not for a few months, not for a couple of years...but several years!
Kasparov dominated chess for so long, and maintained his world no.1 status for 20 years or so. Let's see Jaedong try to do that LOL! The fact that Starcraft 1 will die soon just makes this comparison very silly (but it's still rather entertaining LOL).
Starcraft has been played for 11 years. Chess has been played for 1100 years (more actually LOL). Kasparov is too good.
Wow, im getting told off by some random on an internet forum...im a 2057 rated player buddy. I know all about Kasparov, ive even chatted with him during internet chess club showmatches. Who do you think you are anyway - the best you can offer is to repeat some information from the OP. The point is, he wasnt this all unchallengable player, as I mentioned, other players were matching him at different points in his career...or have you forgotten Kramnik (ranked #3) beat Kasparov (ranked #1) to take his world title without losing a single game?
Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong
Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career.
I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE?
Dude, Kasparov had 2800+ ELO consistently - perhaps the equivalent of ELO 2300+ in TLPD. When I say "consistently", I mean he maintained that ELO for years. Not for a few weeks, not for a few months, not for a couple of years...but several years!
Kasparov dominated chess for so long, and maintained his world no.1 status for 20 years or so. Let's see Jaedong try to do that LOL! The fact that Starcraft 1 will die soon just makes this comparison very silly (but it's still rather entertaining LOL).
Starcraft has been played for 11 years. Chess has been played for 1100 years (more actually LOL). Kasparov is too good.
LOL Chess in its current incarnation has not been played for that long. LOL. But that's a technicality. Obviously it is a game with much more history, and a greater capacity for longevity. However, LOL, Kasparov's reign should be held with those standards in mind. That is, we must consider that it is easier to reign that long in chess than it is in Starcraft. The entire scene of starcraft LOL moves at a quicker pace due to an incredibly high rate of games being played between top players and a larger gap between the current game and perfect play.
Kasparov was evidently at the end of his time when he lost to Kramnik though, similar how to Savior's reign ended when Bisu 3-0'd him. Before then, it's a different matter though.
On October 04 2009 07:07 Slow Motion wrote: Why do you say Bisu's PvZ has yet to be tested? Because his wins are rapes? He's faced a bunch of great Zergs, including Jaedong, over and over again in his career.
Bisu's Career Bo5s vs. Zergs:
2009 GOM Showmatch v Jaedong, Loss 2007 GOM MSL 3 v Kwanro, Win 2007 GOM MSL 2 v GoRush, Win 2007 GOM MSL 1 v Savior, Win
Not having played a Bo5 that mattered against a Zerg in the last 2 years probably counts as being untested.
Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong
Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career.
I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE?
Dude, Kasparov had 2800+ ELO consistently - perhaps the equivalent of ELO 2300+ in TLPD. When I say "consistently", I mean he maintained that ELO for years. Not for a few weeks, not for a few months, not for a couple of years...but several years!
Kasparov dominated chess for so long, and maintained his world no.1 status for 20 years or so. Let's see Jaedong try to do that LOL! The fact that Starcraft 1 will die soon just makes this comparison very silly (but it's still rather entertaining LOL).
Starcraft has been played for 11 years. Chess has been played for 1100 years (more actually LOL). Kasparov is too good.
LOL Chess in its current incarnation has not been played for that long. LOL. But that's a technicality. Obviously it is a game with much more history, and a greater capacity for longevity. However, LOL, Kasparov's reign should be held with those standards in mind. That is, we must consider that it is easier to reign that long in chess than it is in Starcraft. The entire scene of starcraft LOL moves at a quicker pace due to an incredibly high rate of games being played between top players and a larger gap between the current game and perfect play.
Easier to dominate in chess? Honestly? You can win in starcraft by just moving faster, you don't have to out-think your opponent. Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive. And really, do you have ANY idea how much effort it takes to become a grandmaster?A whole - fucking - lot. A top one? I'd rather not think about it.
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.
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.
Interesting read, but the two can't be compared. Kasparov was on top for so ridiculously long, and he was so far ahead of the competition it's not even comparable to Jaedong
Dont forget about karpov during the formative years, and Kramnik during the later. Anand as well had a good record (not positive though) against Kasparov. While he was dominant, nothing was ever certain, and he had many tough rivals throughout his whole career.
I think the real question is who cares about the players less out of KESPA and FIDE?
Dude, Kasparov had 2800+ ELO consistently - perhaps the equivalent of ELO 2300+ in TLPD. When I say "consistently", I mean he maintained that ELO for years. Not for a few weeks, not for a few months, not for a couple of years...but several years!
Kasparov dominated chess for so long, and maintained his world no.1 status for 20 years or so. Let's see Jaedong try to do that LOL! The fact that Starcraft 1 will die soon just makes this comparison very silly (but it's still rather entertaining LOL).
Starcraft has been played for 11 years. Chess has been played for 1100 years (more actually LOL). Kasparov is too good.
LOL Chess in its current incarnation has not been played for that long. LOL. But that's a technicality. Obviously it is a game with much more history, and a greater capacity for longevity. However, LOL, Kasparov's reign should be held with those standards in mind. That is, we must consider that it is easier to reign that long in chess than it is in Starcraft. The entire scene of starcraft LOL moves at a quicker pace due to an incredibly high rate of games being played between top players and a larger gap between the current game and perfect play.
Easier to dominate in chess? Honestly? You can win in starcraft by just moving faster, you don't have to out-think your opponent. Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive. And really, do you have ANY idea how much effort it takes to become a grandmaster?A whole - fucking - lot. A top one? I'd rather not think about it.
Do you take me for an idiot? Well you obviously do. I agree dominating in chess is difficult. I agree reaching the top is nigh impossible. But staying at the top for a truly long time is easier than it is in Starcraft because of the pace of the world. The chess world does not move as quickly as the starcraft one.
"Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive." Why? Explain this point.
By the way, I'm not saying it's easier to dominate in chess. I actually think it's harder. I'm merely saying that do not be fooled by the look-at-how-long-Kasparov-dominated argument.
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.
yup this is a ridiculous comparison.
Rofl at the people calling Kasparov one of the great geniuses of the 21st century ~~ He was really good at playing a game, nothing more. Good for him though (and the people who got to watch him) Personally I am perfectly happy with comparing jaedongs talent for starcraft with kasparovs talent for chess. Kasparov probably coming out ahead though.
On October 05 2009 02:01 DamageControL wrote:Do you take me for an idiot? Well you obviously do. I agree dominating in chess is difficult. I agree reaching the top is nigh impossible. But staying at the top for a truly long time is easier than it is in Starcraft because of the pace of the world. The chess world does not move as quickly as the starcraft one.
"Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive." Why? Explain this point.
By the way, I'm not saying it's easier to dominate in chess. I actually think it's harder. I'm merely saying that do not be fooled by the look-at-how-long-Kasparov-dominated argument.
Cool down mate.
The comparison between Starcraft and Chess already doesn't quite make sense. Firstly, we must look at the context.
How many people in the world play Starcraft professionally? Let's say it's "5000". Possibly 90% of these 5000 people are all in South Korea. That's already a problem in itself when you want to start comparing Starcraft to Chess. How many chess schools/training dorms are there? I'd bet over 90% of these are also only found in South Korea.
Now lets look at Chess. How many play Chess professionally? I'd say there are many more than "5000", perhaps even "50,000". And they come from all parts of the world.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? Chess is more of an international "game" than Starcraft, and there are far more people playing Chess than Starcraft. This statistically makes it much harder to dominate in Chess than Starcraft.
The fact is that Kasparov held his no.1 ranking (based on ELO) for 20 years or so. He managed to maintain it despite new computer technology bringing about new ways to learn. He adapted so well, it's not even funny. He managed to defeat several generations of top chess players. Sure, he lost to Kramnik in one match (he only lost 2 games by the way), but how many BO3s and BO5s has Jaedong lost himself?
As you can see, it's a bit ridiculous to make the comparison. However, as I stated before, it doesn't make it any less fun!
EDIT: by the way, Kasparov was no.1 in ELO for a duration of 20 years, which is longer than Jaedong has been alive. LOL.
Seriously? Having played wacraft3 as a semi-pro, and playing chess at near master level I suppose I can offer a limited explanation, with the first antecedent that yes, SC is harder to master than WC3. With that as a given, it is simply easier to pick up and learn RTS games as a child, than it is to learn chess. Why? The amount of calculation required.
Having recently learned SC to C level (in under 2 months), my approach basically focussed upon reading liquipedia then playing the game. Every game I lose, I take notes on, identifying the causitive reasons for the loss, and do my best to remove them. Sometimes, I need to scout more, other times I need to stop droning earlier etc etc. But really, with another 6 months, I can probably make B level if I keep trying, by simply appling the same process. Lets say after a year of playing, im a B level player - not too difficult a stretch of the imagination. This makes me a very strong player overall, ridiculously strong. While I cannot compete with professionals, who are all super-GM equivalents, since we are making comparisons to chess, I would at least be a strong master, maybe even an international master. All within a year... When playing SC, I dont need to think very far ahead at all. Infact, my comitting good mechanics to memory, most of my thinking is done before the game (eg; if I scout an early gas vs T, build a sunken at 17, put down a hydra den before lairtech) and ingame by decisions are more about how heavily to go macro. If I can get an advantage, I know what needs to be done; secure an expo, scout for hidden enemy expos, and counter potential comeback attempts. Basically, I dont have to think much, because well, playing at 250+APM, I dont have much time to think. SC, and RTS in general, at least the good ones, is about being prepared and able to perform functions at high speed. It is for a reason that JD is the most dominant player (he has the best mechanics), yet he often, indeed regularly falls down when presented with a problem outside his pregame prep (fantasy at the 08/09 PL finals). SC is a game of mechanics.
Comparing my chess life, we I have played casually since I was 6. I was never one for heavy study or practice at a young age, I have only ever played for fun. Same was with computer games really. Now, 15 years later, I play just below master level. So im a great player, but just not against serious opposition (same as been top of bnet in SC really). To get to this point, I have spent thousands of hours playing, reading and talking about chess. Its hard work. I have written thesis length notes of my favourite openenings and defences (im a 1.d4 into catalan, queen's gambit or french defence player as white, and a staunch nimzo/queen's indian + caro-kann player as black...yes, I do like Karpov and Kramnik a lot). Despite this massive amount of work, I havent even reached the lowest level of mastery of the game, something players like Kramnik managed at like 11 years of age. Super-GM by 17...to be a great chess player, you need th epregame stuff just liek you do in SC. However, unlike SC, chess doesnt reward you for simply being faster than your opponent (at least, not nearly as noticably, especially given the frequency of GM draws). You must out think them. Often involves this thinking 5+ moves ahead, as well as accurately assessing the form of the pawn structure, where the energy of the pieces lies, what squares are weak and strong, whether or knights or bishops are more favorable in the current terrain, perhaps an exchange sacrifice might be ideal, as well as a whole range of sacrifices for the initiative, attacking opportunities or even mating threats. This all needs to be constantly calculated, which is not only incredibly difficult to do with any degree of accuracy, but it is also extremely fatiguing. A 4 hour game of chess (under standard, classical time controls) is brutal. The mental effort required to play chess at the highest level is simply ridiculous.
My point about genius is thus equally simple. As a game of mechanics, SC is more accessible to younger kids. They might not readily understand the concepts, but if they are shown the way, shown the reasons and effects, they can readily appreciate it. I have taught the younger siblings of friends to win at WC3 (they wanted to beat their school friends), and it is amazing how quickly non-gifted children can pick up an RTS. While SC is clearly harder, the same logic applies. They are games of economy, a concept everyone is exposed to and appreciates every day.
Chess on the other hand, due to the huge requirements for calculation and preparedness, is not accessible to children at all. Thats what makes child chess prodigies truly magical, they have a greater than even adult level to process information at high speed, with alarming accuracy. Its something the simply should not be able to do, because their child minds are not yet fully developed, and hence should not be able to function at that capacity. They dont grasp everything, and you only need to play in a youth vs experience tournament to see that (sadly, these days, im on the experience side as an aging 21 year old playing against upcoming 10 year olds) the higher level concepts are beyond them. But the capacity for calculation makes up for that - they only need to round out their skillset and they will soon be GMs.
Its simply not like that in SC, where the closest example, Flash, while more creative than the norm, is mostly a mechanical player. Boxer is the most chess like in his approach to SC, but his mechanics are weak compared to modern players and thus he loses. SC's emphasis on speed over the mind is why chess is more genius, because in chess, you have to be a genius to be the best, but in SC you can get by just being fast (and there are too many examples I can give here, just choose your favourite high mechanics, low creativity player).
And yes, this means for me, SC is closer to being an actual sport than chess is, due to that physical requirement for speed and stamina.
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.
Kasparov was a great critical thinker who was great at a game. Jaedong is a great critical thinker who is great at a game.
Let's not lose too much perspective here please.
what perspective is being lost? kasparov's mastery of chess much more akin to genius than jaedong's ability to play a computer game.
I'm not disputing the degree of dominance here. Kasparov obviously wins in that category. I'm saying that they play both play games of critical thinking and strategy and are very successful. One thing to consider is that Starcraft requires much faster-paced decision making than chess.
I'd still take Boxer as a general of my army any day, though.
I does not believing you is compraing CHEST PLAYER with SC PLAYERS. This be not good for anybooy but yourselfs. Why is you doing these things. So disgustings!!!!!
On October 05 2009 02:01 DamageControL wrote:Do you take me for an idiot? Well you obviously do. I agree dominating in chess is difficult. I agree reaching the top is nigh impossible. But staying at the top for a truly long time is easier than it is in Starcraft because of the pace of the world. The chess world does not move as quickly as the starcraft one.
"Chess is a game of pure mental strugle between two players however, and that alone makes it more competetive." Why? Explain this point.
By the way, I'm not saying it's easier to dominate in chess. I actually think it's harder. I'm merely saying that do not be fooled by the look-at-how-long-Kasparov-dominated argument.
Cool down mate.
The comparison between Starcraft and Chess already doesn't quite make sense. Firstly, we must look at the context.
How many people in the world play Starcraft professionally? Let's say it's "5000". Possibly 90% of these 5000 people are all in South Korea. That's already a problem in itself when you want to start comparing Starcraft to Chess. How many chess schools/training dorms are there? I'd bet over 90% of these are also only found in South Korea.
Now lets look at Chess. How many play Chess professionally? I'd say there are many more than "5000", perhaps even "50,000". And they come from all parts of the world.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? Chess is more of an international "game" than Starcraft, and there are far more people playing Chess than Starcraft. This statistically makes it much harder to dominate in Chess than Starcraft.
The fact is that Kasparov held his no.1 ranking (based on ELO) for 20 years or so. He managed to maintain it despite new computer technology bringing about new ways to learn. He adapted so well, it's not even funny. He managed to defeat several generations of top chess players. Sure, he lost to Kramnik in one match (he only lost 2 games by the way), but how many BO3s and BO5s has Jaedong lost himself?
As you can see, it's a bit ridiculous to make the comparison. However, as I stated before, it doesn't make it any less fun!
EDIT: by the way, Kasparov was no.1 in ELO for a duration of 20 years, which is longer than Jaedong has been alive. LOL.
Sorry if I lost my cool.
My point is length is less impressive than it sounds comparatively. Of course its harder to get to the top but it's easier to last a long time. One year is a reasonably quite a long time to be good in SC. Two or three puts you among the greatest ever. But in chess those are relatively brief reigns.
I'm actually think that Kasparov is the greater champion. Of course he is. And I think chess is a game that is more difficult to be the best in. Again, of course. My argument is that Chess reigns will naturally by longer than SC reigns, even ones with "comparable" (or as comparable as the two get, anyways) dominant periods.
@jfazz: really well written, and thanks for that. I agree that Starcraft is more of a sport than Chess is. On the other hand, Chess is more of a science than Starcraft is.
@Wr3k: You may find Chess boring, but I bet Kasparov himself finds Starcraft boring too LOL. I bet every single one of us here know at least 10 people (that they can name instantly) that find Starcraft boring etc.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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 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.
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:
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 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.
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:
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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 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.
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:
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 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.
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:
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.
On October 05 2009 18:33 Hinanawi wrote: 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.
Yeah I was surprised checkers took so long to be solved. Chess, though, is probably going to take a lot more than 50 years to solve. More like 100.
On October 05 2009 18:33 Hinanawi wrote: 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.
Yeah I was surprised checkers took so long to be solved. Chess, though, is probably going to take a lot more than 50 years to solve. More like 100.
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.
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:
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:
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.
What don't you understand? You wrote your previous post as if DB's win was a fluke. A lucky game, when in fact there were a LOT of games. The point still stands that a machine that CAN beat a Super-GM was created. Even getting to a draw 3 times in a row is enough to prove that it would eventually be able to win vs a human, since a human is more likely to make an error than something that can calculate one billion moves in advance.
Also, as others have pointed out, please learn to post. Trolling with things like "You are the best" and "LOL" is juvenile. It's not my fault that you can't express your ideas in a way that is easy to understand.
On October 05 2009 09:27 ssj114 wrote: @jfazz: really well written, and thanks for that. I agree that Starcraft is more of a sport than Chess is. On the other hand, Chess is more of a science than Starcraft is.
@Wr3k: You may find Chess boring, but I bet Kasparov himself finds Starcraft boring too LOL. I bet every single one of us here know at least 10 people (that they can name instantly) that find Starcraft boring etc.
People don't find starcraft boring, they are just unworldly.
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.