Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Peter Rhodes
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:53 pm

Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Peter Rhodes » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:51 am

Kasparov talks for an hour on a number of subjects : his infamous game vs IBM, Computers, Politics, Magnus Carlsen ,Psychology and Improvement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hf31xOhchY
Chess Amateur.

matt_ward
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by matt_ward » Sun Nov 21, 2010 12:36 pm

Is he still coming up with excuses why IBM computer beat him?

Matt.

Peter Rhodes
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:53 pm

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Peter Rhodes » Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:30 pm

It was pretty unusual for a computer at that time to find a move like f4 in a tournament time limit, and then they took the machine to bits when it would have been so easy to prove Kasparov wrong simply by re-creating the position.
Chess Amateur.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Joey Stewart » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:25 pm

the deep blue team DEFINATELY cheated. No computer was on par with that 'technology' at the time - it is impossible to think that they were at least 10 years ahead of their time with the machine they had created.
It is a scientific fact, virtually.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:43 pm

Joey Stewart wrote:the deep blue team DEFINATELY cheated. No computer was on par with that 'technology' at the time - it is impossible to think that they were at least 10 years ahead of their time with the machine they had created.
It is a scientific fact, virtually.
*definitely

I'm sorry for being pedantic, but if you're going to draw attention to it like that, at least spell it right. :wink:

(I wouldn't normally do this, but 99% of the time I see that word, it's spelt incorrectly.)

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Carl Hibbard » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:47 pm

What is the plural of pedantic?
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Joey Stewart » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:54 pm

Carl Hibbard wrote:What is the plural of pedantic?
I have noticed this error before, but forgot about it until today. When you click "quote" it sends a private message to somebody instead of making another post in the thread.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Joey Stewart » Sun Nov 21, 2010 10:55 pm

Oh, wait a minute, now it is working fine. Something strange is going on tonight.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

User avatar
Carl Hibbard
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:05 pm
Location: Evesham

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Carl Hibbard » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:52 am

Joey Stewart wrote:Oh, wait a minute, now it is working fine. Something strange is going on tonight.
Send me some more details please if you are seeing any sort of errors since I have not seen or experienced that one before?
Cheers
Carl Hibbard

Nick Thomas
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Nick Thomas » Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:11 am

Peter Rhodes wrote:It was pretty unusual for a computer at that time to find a move like f4 in a tournament time limit, and then they took the machine to bits when it would have been so easy to prove Kasparov wrong simply by re-creating the position.
I think the move in question was Be4. The logs have been published for all the games which I think pretty much puts the whole thing to rest.

Michael Jones
Posts: 642
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:37 pm

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Michael Jones » Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:12 am

Joey Stewart wrote:the deep blue team DEFINATELY cheated. No computer was on par with that 'technology' at the time - it is impossible to think that they were at least 10 years ahead of their time with the machine they had created.
It is a scientific fact, virtually.
Bear in mind that in most of the subsequent human vs computer matches, the engines (mostly Fritz or Junior) were running on more or less standard desktop PCs, whereas Deep Blue was the fastest supercomputer IBM could make; its software wasn't as good as later engines, but its hardware was better. The Deep Blue team cheating is very far from being a 'scientific fact'; evidence for it is at best circumstantial and at worst non-existent. Kasparov didn't exactly have a reputation for being gracious in defeat (touch move violation against Polgar; rant about Radjabov's win at Linares being voted the game of the tournament solely because he lost, etc.) so his whinge against Deep Blue was most probably just another case of sour grapes.

Peter Rhodes
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:53 pm

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Peter Rhodes » Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:54 pm

The logs have been published for all the games which I think pretty much puts the whole thing to rest.
By logs - we are talking about the list of candidate moves and the engine evaluation of each ?

If that has been published - where can I find a copy ?
Chess Amateur.

Nick Thomas
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Nick Thomas » Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:02 pm


Warren Kingston

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Warren Kingston » Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:16 pm

History, finito.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1860
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Kasparov Talks @ Google.

Post by Joey Stewart » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:29 pm

Why is there always somebody who comes along and undermines me sweeping generalisations with 'the facts'
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Post Reply