Deep Blue no longer exists, but if the 1997 version which defeated Kasparov were still around in IBM's basement, would you be interested in this match?
IMO Kasparov was better than both deep blue versions. I think the businessman got the better of him and he thought...well if I lose a match to deep blue the hype and possible money payout for a third and final match will be good.
IBM won, took the ball, and dismantled the machine.
Now in regards to Magnus....he would have beaten that version of the machine at that time with its processing power. Probably the top 5 in the world today would have a decent shot.....
Once Hydra came into being and crushed Adams the allure and the funding for man vs machine matches dried up
I'm about as interested in watching man-machine chess as watching man-machine boxing.
I'm even less interested in speculating how Carlsen would do. The matches obviously destroy the psychology of people who are used to playing against people. Kasparov resigning a drawn position, Kramnik missing mate in 1 in a super simplified position, etc. It's a side show attraction, at best.
I'm fascinated by the idea because computer programs are possibly the only chess players (and maybe the only competitive champions of the past period(!)) you can actually "bring back from the dead" and have them play at the same strength they originally did regardless of era. So in a way, it could potentially provide a rough standard of comparison for Kasparov in his prime and Carlsen now...including how knowledge of the game has developed over the last decade-and-a-half (if it's developed at all.)
BTW, I'm aware that Deep Blue was modified during the match with Kasparov but they could use whatever form it was in for the last game of the 1997 match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightytiny
IMO Kasparov was better than both deep blue versions. I think the businessman got the better of him and he thought...well if I lose a match to deep blue the hype and possible money payout for a third and final match will be good.
IBM won, took the ball, and dismantled the machine.
Now in regards to Magnus....he would have beaten that version of the machine at that time with its processing power. Probably the top 5 in the world today would have a decent shot.....
Once Hydra came into being and crushed Adams the allure and the funding for man vs machine matches dried up
Yes, 1996-1997 was a sort-of golden period when the peak strength of computers was just about even with the peak strength of humans. It's interesting that you think the Top 5 players in the world today would do better than Kasparov did. At least that's what I assume you're saying. Do you think the knowledge of the game has progressed that much since '97?
As always with these comparisons it again ignores the opponent which biases the results. It's fairly safe to say that I don't think Kramnik has ever missed a mate in 1 in a simple position ever - but he did against a computer. Kasparov for some reason decided to play a line of the Caro Kann he knew was busted, resigned a drawn position, etc. The lack of psychological tension is likely the issue. I know in chess seeing my opponent think and try to dig into the position gives me even more energy to win. What I'm getting at is that Nakamura, for instance, would probably do better against Deep Blue than Kasparov or Kramnik did (and probably than Carlsen would) even though he's undeniably a substantially weaker player than all of the above. However, he has much more experience playing against computers and psychological factors (or the lack there of) would probably have less of a negative impact on his play.
Would top players get psychologically used to playing vs. computers in big "title" bout matches though at some point?
I guess I'd assume if enough $$ was put out and there were regular high-level super GM vs. machine tournaments happening "all" the time, the GMs would adjust more and more. I know they all use machines to prep and train, but the actual competitive stage and atmosphere would probably help the GMs grow too.
Deep Blue for suuuuuure is weaker than Carlsen. It was surely weaker than Kasparov (especially Deep Thought, which was much, much weaker) - Deep Blue probably couldn't have had a shot at beating any other top GM, it's software was designed specifically to play Kasparov.
I did some report on it at the time and talked with the lead programmer and Joel Benjamin (GM adviser to the project) and it was super duper clear the program had a couple of minor bugs up until the match (like a week or month before it was miscalculating random positions by adding a phantom queen, and it apparently wasn't a trivial bug) and was relying really heavily on book stuff for Kasparov.
Joel Benjamin didn't even think the computer beat him, he kind of acted like *he* was able to beat Kasparov, I think b/c he put so much time in manually preparing for Kasparov and it was so satisfying when he mentally folded.
Anyway, obv computers are tons better now but yeah, not enough ppl are interested to provide backing for enough matches for this to be interesting (imo)...
As always with these comparisons it again ignores the opponent which biases the results. It's fairly safe to say that I don't think Kramnik has ever missed a mate in 1 in a simple position ever - but he did against a computer. Kasparov for some reason decided to play a line of the Caro Kann he knew was busted, resigned a drawn position, etc. The lack of psychological tension is likely the issue. I know in chess seeing my opponent think and try to dig into the position gives me even more energy to win. What I'm getting at is that Nakamura, for instance, would probably do better against Deep Blue than Kasparov or Kramnik did (and probably than Carlsen would) even though he's undeniably a substantially weaker player than all of the above. However, he has much more experience playing against computers and psychological factors (or the lack there of) would probably have less of a negative impact on his play.
Yes absolutely. I wonder though if a player with the improved opening knowledge or perhaps greater calculating ability, as Carlsen may be, would feel less stress against the computer as he would see more roads to victory. I'm still interested in the comparison of both players, even if it's just seeing how they both do against the same computer program.
Hypothetical question, similar but slightly modified: If there was a computer program in the 1970's that had somehow played Fischer to a draw (in an attacking match, not just by playing boring drawing variations), would you have been interested in seeing Kasparov at peak strength attempt to beat the same program?
Would top players get psychologically used to playing vs. computers in big "title" bout matches though at some point?
I guess I'd assume if enough $$ was put out and there were regular high-level super GM vs. machine tournaments happening "all" the time, the GMs would adjust more and more. I know they all use machines to prep and train, but the actual competitive stage and atmosphere would probably help the GMs grow too.
Deep Blue for suuuuuure is weaker than Carlsen. It was surely weaker than Kasparov (especially Deep Thought, which was much, much weaker) - Deep Blue probably couldn't have had a shot at beating any other top GM, it's software was designed specifically to play Kasparov.
I did some report on it at the time and talked with the lead programmer and Joel Benjamin (GM adviser to the project) and it was super duper clear the program had a couple of minor bugs up until the match (like a week or month before it was miscalculating random positions by adding a phantom queen, and it apparently wasn't a trivial bug) and was relying really heavily on book stuff for Kasparov.
Joel Benjamin didn't even think the computer beat him, he kind of acted like *he* was able to beat Kasparov, I think b/c he put so much time in manually preparing for Kasparov and it was so satisfying when he mentally folded.
Anyway, obv computers are tons better now but yeah, not enough ppl are interested to provide backing for enough matches for this to be interesting (imo)...
Fascinating info and it sounds like you have some closer knowledge of the topic. These are the types of things I always hope to uncover when starting discussions. It also explains why it was so important that they were able to modify Deep Blue between the games. Not just to further exploit Kasparov (which feels less fair), but to avoid an embarrassing situation where it just glitches repeatedly.
Yeah, though not at that speed - the video is time lapsed. The reason I mentioned Naka in particular is because he seems to have gone out of his way to learn to defeat a number of the strongest computers, mostly by exploiting them where they are very weak. Everybody analyzes with computers now a days but few bother spending the time to learn how to defeat them in regular games - what purpose does it have?
Every super GM might win vs. Deep Blue given more normal rules (so that there wasn't 6 months between each opponent to heavily modify the book and program for that specific player). It's very very difficult to say how good Deep Blue would be vs. "the field" at any major chess tournament. Joel Benjamin maybe would be the only one maybe who could and he is/was suuuper biased. Anyway, it was designed for such a specific purpose, and ran hot (lucky), and luckboxed psychologically.
At the same time, it was v v strong (way stronger than Deep Thought) and won such a historically impressive match that it kind of didn't matter. But from what I understand (very little except for the first few years after Deep Blue) chess programs have gotten way, way better so whatever the strongest program is right now would probably thrash Deep Blue and make it cry.
Do it right - yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I don't really know specialized or not specialized young GMs get specifically at beating computers, but it seems a more direct $$ compensation would make them all spend tons more time at it and then it would be interesting to see what would happen.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
