24 Jul 08
Originally posted by sh76The story goes that IBM paid a secret group of masters to play for the computer to make it look like the machine was really strong.
Now that you bring that up... I was always wondering. How could the computer have cheated? Used another computer? Used a human move when the whole point was that the computer was supposed to be better than any human? I don't get it.
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by sh76I believe Kasparov claimed the move was made by a human,yes.I think in those matches there's a team of strong human GM's assisting the program.Not sure how they assist.Maybe alter it's opening book or improve it's evaluation of certain positions.Am I correct in this?
Now that you bring that up... I was always wondering. How could the computer have cheated? Used another computer? Used a human move when the whole point was that the computer was supposed to be better than any human? I don't get it.
Anyway,the way I understood it,it can be proven it was indeed the engine making the move by some sort of print outs.Kasparov requested to see these but the request was denied.
That's how I remember the whole story anyway.
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexOkay, but Kasparov was the best in the World at the time. Why did he lose if he was playing against proxies for other masters?
The story goes that IBM paid a secret group of masters to play for the computer to make it look like the machine was really strong.
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by lauseyIf a strong player (2000+) playing a weak player (1000-) wants to end the game quickly (I am inclined to say just blitz it because he will win) offer a draw before the rating calculation sets in and get your hand bitten off.
I feel a little skeptical about this though, because there could be some other reason why the strong player might want to end the game quickly.
This example is a serious example of a "typical" engine move that would not be made by any serious player.
In fact I have one game that ended in a similar sort of way against a player who many suspected (but was never banned so shall be nameless for the time being) and who was rated at 2300+ at that time.
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by sh76With a team of players checking each others moves, there would far less likely be the same mistakes made as there would be if kasparov was playing any single one of them. That, and they were having their moved blunderchecked by, what was then, the best computer available.
Okay, but Kasparov was the best in the World at the time. Why did he lose if he was playing against proxies for other masters?
I think he did win some games in that match too, but lost out overall.
24 Jul 08
Yasser Seirawan was on the IBM team...and he has beaten both Karpov and Kasparov OTB...however he denies there was any wrong doing. The Kasparov team were extremely paranoid and suspected there conversations were being bugged and so on. I expect this would have had a draining effect on his energy...something that cannot effect a computer.
24 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76There's a documentary about it called "Game Over: Kasparov vs. The Machine".
Okay, but Kasparov was the best in the World at the time. Why did he lose if he was playing against proxies for other masters?
Computers certainly used to play characterically computer-like moves, especially ones which involved gobbling up material but left them strategically weaker. Poor computers/programmes like the one on my phone still do it.
Kasparov felt sure that in game 2 of their 1997 match...
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070913
...Deep Blue would play 37. Qb6, which he thought was the computer-like move. When it didn't he became paranoid, lost it mentally and went on to lose the match. In game 2 he apparently resigned in drawn position.
My understanding is that in regular correspondence chess computer use is permitted (not here at RHP of course, but that's another story). I would imagine the top CC players are all centaurs these days.
24 Jul 08
A single move led me to suspect tension84 - 35...b6 in Game 2971122. You'd only play this move if you had forseen the spetacular 39...Bg6!!, which in my opinion is beyond the capabilities of most (but not all) ordinary masters. Computers, on the other hand...
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by DawgHausWell I didn't see it coming... that means I'm not even an ordinary master...
A single move led me to suspect tension84 - 35...b6 in Game 2971122. You'd only play this move if you had forseen the spetacular 39...Bg6!!, which in my opinion is beyond the capabilities of most (but not all) ordinary masters. Computers, on the other hand...
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by DawgHausI suspected him when he played Kh8, Bf8 and Bf7: non natural moves for me. But I played a good game. I'm proud even if I lost. And that was a year ago! I think I play better now.
A single move led me to suspect tension84 - 35...b6 in Game 2971122. You'd only play this move if you had forseen the spetacular 39...Bg6!!, which in my opinion is beyond the capabilities of most (but not all) ordinary masters. Computers, on the other hand...
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by backfrom1994Good advice - excellent infact.
I don't mind playing against an engine. It have weaknesses. Play a closed game: a strategic game not a tactical game. Let it take b2 a ''poisoned pawn''. Help it to play h6 or other weaknesses move for the King. Think long term, not just the next move.
But I think you would like to know in advance it was computer you
were playing and not a human.
Just curious now - what happened after this joker was banned
did you get back the rating points?
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34No I didn't get my points but he was banned before the second round of the 2007 Championship started so I was last minute admited in the secound round!
Good advice - excellent infact.
But I think you would like to know in advance it was computer you
were playing and not a human.
Just curious now - what happened after this joker was banned
did you get back the rating points?
24 Jul 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34Before playing someone 2000+, I look at his graph, check some games he won over big player, some he lost over weak player, how many games in progress, etc.. to have an idea who I'm going to play with. Sometime I know before starting a game I'm playing against a computer...
Good advice - excellent infact.
But I think you would like to know in advance it was computer you
were playing and not a human.
Just curious now - what happened after this joker was banned
did you get back the rating points?