Two negatives to Kasparov:
1) He should have negotiated more favorable ground rules up front w/ IBM
2) It would have been nice to see him maintain his composure in the matches after the second.
Nonetheless, outside of the alleged "human augmented Deep Blue chess moves", I find it deplorable that IBM would use "human intimidation" to screw with Kasparov's head instead of just letting him focus on competing with the computer.
Does anyone think a guy as clever as Kasparov would not insist on proof he was playing a computer. The whole thing was a publicity stunt. If Deep Blue has any poke, it would not have been taken apart. Kasparove is as fake as all the other computer vs machine people who are paid off to advertise deep fritz or deep junior's latest try.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/THX-1138/too-many-happy-meals.jpg
Thx BenjaminTheBlue
BenjaminTheBlue"Kasparove is as fake as all the other computer vs machine people who are paid off to advertise deep fritz or deep junior's latest try."
Thanks, I had a good laugh at that one.
Kasparove is a lot of things, but are you trying to say he would "take a dive" for IBM cash? Kasparove's reputation, and his place is history are going to be worth more to him than any bribe IBM could offer. Did you even watch the film? Or are you just another cynical youngster that thinks everthing is "fake" heh. :)
I watched the film more carefully than you - obviously, because amongst the chess world, he threw enough suspicion, to plant the seeds, that there had been human intervention and so therefore maintained his reputation somewhat.
IBM and the mainstream news papers didn't care about that and shares rose. A 6 foot black machine stuff nightmares are made of
I have also obviously studied the games more than you, and the last one was a well known defense, that you might as well give up against a strong computer. WHY DID HE PLAY IT? Money! Kasparov is as crooked as the judge(s) in the first Lennox Lewis-Evander Holyfield fight...
Would you say Kramnik couldnt beat Deep Fritz if he wanted to? He made poor club player mistakes, that he supiciously doesn't do in human matches. Fritz sold well, and they even give their $200000 share to charity. Those nice guys feeling sorry for people in need :)
A 6-0 defeat would have destroyed Fritz, but we all know that would not happen. You think the developers / owners and shareholders in Fritz take chances like that? Kasparov is a tiny bit clever and you are right..wouldnt risk his reputation by letting there be human intervention. Thats why he would have asked for printouts and independant people looking over the machines calculations. What a money making scam!!!
Benjamin you have made some very interesting and valid points. Certainly Krmanik's blunder against Fritz looked suspicious, even if it was an awkward looking mate. A player of Kramnik's level would have seen that in a second.
With regards to Kasparov I really don't know what to say, he simply crumbled in the final game, I think the pressure and frustration really got to him. But a player of his level should have known better. Even if IBM were cheating, why would he make those accusations and inflate the situation more? It only made the IBM team stronger. Kasparov certainly had the strength to beat Deep Blue, but he got carried away with these side show paranoias.
He simply should have given it his best regardless of who he thought was at the helm of the machine, at his best he would be extremely difficult to beat.
LOL Finally someone who at least agrees there is something even suspicious about him making those acusations. Surely calculation isnt as good as evaluation and Kasparov as you say could evaluate better than anyone on the planet. Can Joel Benjamin evaluate better than Kasparov? In the book DeepBlue, the makers certainly thought they had a machine to give Kasparov a good go, but there is something that doesnt make sense. Why was it dismantled? There was no reason. If it was a world championship match, I dont think Kasparov would have sold out.
Maybe IBM was scared another chess player might offer to play it and make them look bad for refusing or even other programs. If Bobby Fischer (Posssibly the most honest chess player) had of really asked to play Deep Blue, it might have exposed Garry's advertisement for IBM, because Bobby would have gave it everything and not sold chess out. Other programs might have beat it by now, yet still cannot compare to grandmasters and so would have exposed the scam. IBM were scared of something and it stinks as a huge publicity stunt.
Thx BenjaminTheBlue
Of course IBM were afraid....their stock rose 15% after they beat Kasparov.
Could they afford to risk losing another match?...no way in hell. It wasn't just a man vs machine match it was corporate bullying and strategy at its subtle best.
I'm not too sure if Kasparov possibly the greatest player in history lost on purpose, as he said in the DVD he didn;t care for the whole thing. He felt like he was beating cheated and a sitting duck....and fair enough, from deep blue playing poorly in the first game to super super grandmaster strength in the second, i guess Garry wanted an explanation.
The IBM team especially Joel Benjamin was saying that Kasparov's request for Deep Blue's logs was equivalent to Karpov writing down an essay on all his variations during their games...this is simply INCORRECT.
Obviously Kasparov can see Karpov in front of him when they play, as for Deep Blue...who knows what's going on behind closed doors.
I personally don't think IBM cheated, some of it's more infamous moves in game 2 can easily be duplicated by todays PC programs. Kasparov simply got to caught up in the whole conspiracy and lost focus..he could have beat the machine but got too frustrated in the prcess of trying to work out how it did certain things..
Ibm played on this frustration to the fullest and came out victors in the end.
OK...
I think Kasparov was right. I think IBM did make adjustments and did use humans to do it. Benjamin's assertion isn't on point mainly because if Kasparov wants to see how Karpov would play in a situation he has a 30 year history of recorded tournament games to review to find it. Additionally any player at that time who wanted a real World Championship match with Kasparov would have had to play through the process to get to him leaving at least three dozen games for him to review in his preparation.
As for theories that he was paid. Yes he was. Paid to throw the match? No he wasn't. One great strength of human players and also a weakness is emotion, Lasker used to say that he played the man as opposed to the board. Kasparov (unlike the computer) is capable of a bad day or a bad week. He felt betrayed after game two and lost it. Lets not forget that he is a guy with a good deal of ego and a good deal of competitiveness about him. He can be a little obsessive at times and that's part of what made him so good at this game. And remember, when discussing "we pay you to lose" theories that even now top computers don't exactly own the top GM's in standard time controls and that at the time of this match Kasparov had already beaten Deep Blue the previous year.
Someone mentioned Fischer, I'm not sure if Fischer or Karpov would have been the best possible opponents to defeat the 1997 incarnation of the IBM beast. Fischer had a talent for brilliancy that some think computers counter very well and others think computers have a hard time predicting in their tree analysis. On the other hand Karpov plays a very precise and conservative game that has long been pretty effective against machines, but didn't seem to be so for Kasparov in that match.
I've read a couple of times on this board that Fischer was a "brilliancy" artist. That is certainly true, in a certain manner of speaking, but he wasn't really an Alekhine or Lasker or Tal style player where you make one great move or combination to beat the other guy. Fischer was at heart a very analytical, very straightforward chess player over the board. If he thought complicating a position would give him an objective advantage, fine, he makes the complications. But he was equally happy playing a strategic game. In his own way, Fischer was like a "computer" in his cold analysis of positions. Some of his "brilliant" moves were very simple or strategic in a deeper sense than famous tactical moves by more aggressive Grandmasters, like his "bad bishop capture" against Petrosian in the 1972 candidates match.
shareI think Kasparov is the greatest human player of all time and I enjoyed studying his wonderful games in his book "Test of Time" back when I was an active player.
However, he is clearly un-sportsman like when he loses. We've seen this many times...
What seemed to come as a surprise??? to Kasparov was that IBM was trying to WIN!
I suspect IBM consulted psychologists that planned most of the event to psyche him out. Either way that's what ended up happening.
I suspect that IBM deliberately dumped the first game to accomplish this and then played at full strength for the rest of the match. Notice how game 2 changed things? Fischer did something similar to Spassky in 1972.
Lack of information and cooperation by IBM proves nothing but in itself fuels suspicion/paranoia/conspiracy.
This match made me sad to watch... the greatest human chess player completely humbled publicly. It was impossible for him to accept that he was out played by a computer... hence the public accusations of cheating by IBM.
In light of computer chess completely dominating humans today it's hard for me to believe Kasparov's accusations in this movie.
This is a pretty fair assessment. Psychology has been a part of chess for a century, so it is probable (and, really, only fair) that IBM would take that into consideration. The biggest issue with Kasparov's claim is, of course, who did they get to contribute the move or moves who is better than Kasparov? If I were the human behind the curtain in that situation, no amount of money would keep me quiet; of course there wasn't one.
One thing, though; I've never seen poorer sportsmanship than in chess, outside of online gaming. I think grandmasters on Kasparov's level, or even quite a few rungs below that, have to have egocentric, internalizing personalities, or at least it is certainly very common there. Therefore I certainly don't blame Kasparov for his behavior, and while ultimately incorrect, I can understand his conclusions. It was great to learn more about him in the film.
Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre
Au défaut d'un cordon pour étrangler les rois