Well, since a computer can do a deep search and see the good material gain in the future (or the checkmate. Chess engines I've used before calculate material and choose the best in about 5 moves, but if it sees a mate in the next few moves, it will take it and favor it above all). I was interested though when they refused to provide the log of the game...
Anyway, to the question why deep blue played differnt in the second game. Chess engines use heuristics (very key in ai). In these algorithms as a programmer you have the chance to modify some parameter so the search behaves different. As a programmer you have to test it to know which parameter shift a bit to greatens the effectivness! There is no need to postulate a human, if you know somethin about the theory of ai!
Whats your point? The human was and IS beaten by the computer algorithms. You CANT beat a computer with a deep search range, it's impossible for a human. Today we can build computers with a very great search deepness. I heard a number of about 40 on a todays supercomputer. Its just unbeatable, today and ever in the future. Chess programms are today very less interesting for research, because its just search, and search is much easier (mostly) than for example pattern matching.
The only i don't understand is the accent of a critic in time 3:45?, i mean what was he really said?, did he said : Instead of winning 2 pawns, it plays a strategic move, which secures the win in a long term game?. So, can you tell me what he really said guys?.
I understand the suspicion regarding IBM's refusal for a rematch, and in regards to the human characteristics of the game 2 moves. That being said Game 2 was not a draw, and being fed up by Game 6 does not mean he won.
kasparov is just a terrible loser; he is always saying that they cheated on him and that he is the best player in history.Fischer was the best chess player in history he could have beat kasparov anytime:)
@uchihadante77 Fischer refused to play karpov because both of them knew that karpov was better... How could be able to stand a chance with kasparov. Just take in mind that kasparov is a new-school player, much more well prepared than fischer was !
@urzareaper No one in any competitive sport would ever chicken out because they thought their opponent was better. The only guy in recent history to do that was Mayweather and that's another can of worms...
Why can't we just accept that machines might do some things better than humans? I mean, if someone would ride the Tour de France on a motor cycle, of course he would win. Technology wins this time, but that doesn't make Kasparov any bad human player.
@Grafschnitzel That's obvious, but the IBM team was way to secretive for it not to be foul play. There was absolutely no reason for them to hide stuff from the player. IBM is the only entity in the history of computer chess to pull a stunt like this and it's no surprise that they would immediately bow out after their stocks rose. Even the Houdini and Rybka teams don't do this and they would demolish deep blue.
i think kasparov could havew klearned some things from bobby...no way fischer would allow any of that shit to happen..give me logs of game two or i quit...period
@GreasemonkeyCGI point is fischer would have walked out of the match if they did to him what they did to garry..garry was too soft on those pencilnecks
@can0mark they beat them fairly often actually computers arnt powerful enough yet there are too many possibilities to compute them all out through pure number crunching yet.
@willsmackyoudown Yeah, Fischer and these other chess giants are all pretty amazing. I think I read somewhere that Kasparov beat Fischer once or twice but, I think, Fischer wasn't in his prime.
I sure wish I could play the game even just half as well as them.
Its practically impossible to compare two players from a different era. Paul Morphy was a brilliant player, but would have been no match for modern grand masters because the understanding of the game has changed a lot since then.
@vikinggary How could Deep Blue have cheated? It beat Kasparov fair and square, I dont understand how it could cheat? Slip more pieces on to the board when nobody was looking?!
@shawndimery I think cheat is not a word IBM would like you to use. There may be, however, grounds to suggest they augmented their playing somewhat; there was a lot of behind the scenes secrecy for what was, supposedly, an excercise in computer AI engineering. Personally I think Mr Kasparov was beaten fairly but it would help IBMs position if they were not so unpleasant about who and what were in the backrooms. The full Movie ' Game Over - Kasparov against the machine' is an interesting watch.
This film is out of date. It has been discovered since that the "perpetual check" with which Kasparov could supposedly have have forced a draw was not actually possible at that stage.
@RibR0a5t And I would destroy you. So you may forever remain 2nd. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Always the Silver, never the Gold. Always not quite good enough. Perpetually failing to achieve your objective. An objective which, by the simple factual condition of your opponent, remains an impossibility.
Your comment on Game 6 is hilarious. Yes, it is necessary to admit that Kasparov lost that game, but to balance out the scales a bit we can say that he lost on his own terms. To suggest that "technically speaking" Kasparov had won the game is an appalling perspective on the game itself, and shows no gratitude for it; now we are able to really examine the line that exists between human and machine play.
of-course i mean no disrespect to kasparov, he was clearly a chess god, other to say he was a sore loser but i guess he wasn't used to losing, least of all to a machine.
lol i love the sinister background music. yeah it's a big conspiracy guys, there was actually a midgit hiding in their super computer. being a software developer & having written an engine capable of playing chess i can tell you the algorithm is pretty simple, all the computer needs to kick ass is raw computing power to look as many turns ahead as possible & perhaps some simple pre-programmed knowledge of good opening moves. ibm make super computers, have no doubt it had enough computing power.
from a software developer perspective, yeah, that's definitely fishy that ibm isn't showing any trace logs or software. it's likely that someone was at a computer weeding out moves that were clearly bad, winning to impress stock owners.
shogi is a similar japanese game, and a champion won against a 16 core computer in a very close match. since brute force is extremely impractical due to the breadth of possible moves, the algorithm kept a corpus of winning moves. software's available online.
All arguments make the assumption that you can analyze an AI like you can a human. I've messed with programming AI and there is one thing i can tell you, it is hard to see what is going on in the AI's "head". Sometimes it may make what seems like a brilliant move, other times floundering. This is because there is guessing in algorithms, other times the AI can be focusing on an incorrect variable, and make a move that is good in that respective, but bad for what a human considers the focus.
Dude he gave up, and was fed up... Kasparov is a great chess player but he lost, he lost... If walk away from the Chess board because ur fed up, u lost... The reason why he left, because He was Trapped and didnt know what to do.... NO OFFENCE KASPAROV
@27akram well jews have the highest IQ in the world. it's a proven fact. that's why they are in most positions of western power in all major industries.
i don't believe IBM needed to cheat. Back in that day the fact that IBM put out a great game against history's best player is enough credit for IBM... they didn't need to win to show the IT industry who is king. The conspiracy theory about that pawn move is interesting though: however you must know that just as computers do really stupid mistakes they sometimes do some great moves. This pawn move was not exceptional so i cannot dismiss the fact that it was an authentic move!
that is not correct, computers dont "sometimes" do good moves or not, it is a machine and machines are always consistent because the machine was created by humans and the machine has rules to play by and has to have the information programmed into it and therefore nothing a computer does is random, the machine, and any machine has had everything that it can do dictated to it. the only change to the computers behavior is the person it was playing against.
@thephotoperson As Kasparov said, he saw Deep Blue making the Karpov-style move. Every chess-program has its analysis log, that can be recorded and read by humans. So why did IBM refuse to show the program logs? So, what rating do you have and would you like to play against me, if you are calling world champ a pussy?
@rpdigital17 because IBM wrote those logs and don't have to show them. I don't play chess. And yes, I am calling him a pussy because it takes a real man to admit defeat. Even if he thinks that there is foul play you don't just forfeit the final game and declare yourself the winner. That's a pussy move.
@thephotoperson LOL, IBM didn't write the logs, Deep Blue did. And why do you comment here, when you don't know about playing chess or having defeat? Kasparov has been defeated many times by other chessmasters, that is a part of the game. It was all about the strange behavior of Deep Blue team, they didn't show the logs of the machine, while Kasparov would easily expose his strategy, as he has done many times before. So he got suspitious if there was human player behind the game.
4:20 i rememebr reading about that, people didnt expect it... some people think that it actually thought for its self. Apparently it wasnt programmed to do that,
Obviously this is just like IBM's Jeopardy machine. How can Watson guess the correct answer to some of those incredibly old-english phrased and difficult questions, however then miss the question about the city named after the World War II vet?
Same concept, it read the board wrong. Poster of this video is in denial.
@reachyt America would be shit if that happened. But the minority is now the majority. White people are ultimately going to face the consequences. Jewish people will dominate US.
Well I didn't hear Deeper Blue making accusations like Kasparov, even though it could have said "hey this guy played like a grandmaster for the first 5 games then made a stupid move in the last one, may he was being helped!". Even back then computers had stopped being materialistic. Kasparov was beaten fair and square but his ego can't take it so it's easier to go for the conspiracy..
I'm no expert about chess, and in no way i want to rule out the human intervention hypothesis. But let me point out that this expectancy of a crude and sistematic behavior from a computer is just simplicistic. Such a complicated game as chess requires an equally complicated software, which can EASILY end up in unpredictable behaviors. If you've ever coded something you know that. And the claim that it would run for an immediate catch is pure opinion. A computer CAN be programmed to think ahead.
@RGMadSimon at the time chess software had not reached significant level to beat strong gms. Today is different and software (Rybka, Fritz, etc..) is more important than hardware. Deep blue strength was considered to be its enormous calculation power, which does not mean that it could understand chess as a Top grandmaster does. It is important to compare game 1 and game 2. In game 1 the computer showed its real face, purely calculative power without understanding.game 2 was other story
I have a small question, forget about Human vs Computer type moves and consider this, If the computer captured the pawn it can place it's position in an evaluation function and determine that it's position may be slightly inferior despite a material advantage, So it's not at all surprising to me that it decided against capturing the pawn. The real question is Would a computer engine capture a queen if it lead to a forced mate say 300 moves out? I don't think so.
interesting statement. i believe it would. it would take a pawn, let alone a queen, if it meant an advantage in pieces. computers can very easily be tricked no matter how much technology or "algorithms" are behind it. chess is a mind game too. much like poker. the best poker player IMO would never lose to a poker machine (unless it somehow cheats i.e deep blue).
@Chaldean4life91 It seems like brains work a lot like computers, it's just a matter of installing the right software and having enough power to process it. I could easily see a computer in the future being modeled very realistically after a human brain. But who's to say our brain is anything special, it's easy to imagine that a non neuron based computing style would be much more effective. Also our brains are mysterious yes, but with greater understanding they will be less so, it's not magic.
@Chaldean4life91 well that's my point, i don't think the computer will capture if it led to the computer being mated even if the mate were many moves out. if they weren't able to make an objective judgment on a given position they would be horrible analysis tools and poor competitors seeing as they would not be able to "get past" a good sacrifice so it would be a must that they be able to beat this type of play.
@Chaldean4life91 Chess is not a "mind game" like poker, all the information is on the board, there is no hidden info as there is in poker. Poker also involves luck. Chess has no luck involved (in game). Because of these two things, of course it's easy to beat poker programs.
@jabrightlefthook Yeah. What I was trying to say is I like Chess because there is no luck involved. But I play some poker because of the money to be made and sometimes get lucky (but not often). Chess is more interesting and fun. Poker for me is just for the money. In fact I hate poker, but just so happen to be just good enough to eek out a bit of money from it. In life there is SOME luck I think, you may win the lotto or whatever, or just simply not be born in North Korea, for example.. lol.
@xxxIronLeexxx yea definately i like poker too for the money. In fact i should just say i love money :) , its the blood of this nation. winning the lotto ties into statistics but i definately see your point about being born in north Korea lolllllll very funny but im going to try to top that....... what about not being born in China as a female child into a household full of cannibalistic baby eaters and Chinese black market people traffickers now is that luck or is that luck ......
@jabrightlefthook I don't actually like money, I just feel pressure to make it, or, not get any girls, not eat, live on the street, whatever. I tend to think of money as what it actually is- just little pieces of paper with numbers printed on it. Some people have more little pieces of paper than other people, it doesn't make them any better. Poker seems like a (somewhat) easy way to make a little money, with say 3 years play time. Chess it takes a lifetime to be a GM. But I'd rather be that.
@xxxIronLeexxx i agree with you completely the only reason i love money is because of what it can do for me the pleasures it allows me to engage in keeping myself pretty lol keeping things right in my life but hell yea GM is a great mark to leave behind how long have you been playing chess ive ony been playing 3 an a half years
@jabrightlefthook Well I played Checkers actually for 5 years, I managed to get a Master rating (2200) in that, then quit that and took up Chess and I've been playing it for 2 and a half years. I'm not really any good, I basically maintain my starting rating of 1500 on FICS. I don't take it serious anyway, I just want to do it for fun and I also find it helps with my mental focus. Because the whole time I'm playing, I'm focused on the game. So in other things I can do that easier, be focused.
@xxxIronLeexxx makes alot of sense my friend my rating in chess is only 1650 thats why ive been on youtube looking for clever openings unorthodox playing and working on my tactics but yea i love the focus that comes with chess i learned how apply it to my life im very careful about the desicions i make.im also a boxer i have been using some chess philosophy to help me,i enjoy boxing for the same reason i love chess out-smarting someone is the greatest feeling next to sex lol
@jabrightlefthook Oh....1650 is pretty good. Do you play on FICS?...yeah I saw your profile with the fighting stuff there. That's cool. Good to defend yourself in a real swift manner if need be. And yes...sex. That comes #1 with me. Everything else is a distant #2 to that! lol... The focus thing helps in that respect as well, actually.
@xxxIronLeexxx mental focus for sex lol sounds good man i please my girl everytime intellect does play a role you gotta pay attention to her facial expressions body movement and sounds they all speak words like ."i like this" i love this" "do more of this" not so much of this" be more gentle" over time an observant man develops a certain set of skills to keep her cumming and cumming and thus loving me and mines forever more lol
@jabrightlefthook Yeah... I meant just being "in the moment" yourself, so as to be able to perform, be focused on her. Anyway....that's a whole different subject...how did we get talking about this again? lol
@xxxIronLeexxx i dont even know what FICS is . Is that a chess website or something ? but yea i would like to play against you when you have the time . also if you know chess notation we can play without a website all i have to do is tell you my moveand you tell me yours and we set it uop on the board.
@jabrightlefthook Oh... ok well FICS is the most popular free site to play chess, from what I hear. It's called "FICS" because it means "Free Internet Chess Server". I guess it was the first one ever. Wow I'm sounding like fuckin' spam here...lol...anyway you can join at- freechess(dotorg). You have to download a client there to play on, I use "Babas" (it's the best one soIi recomend that one). It's good because rated play is free too, everything free. If you sign up let me know and we'll play.
Something I will say to IBM, that I used to say to my boys when they beat me at Street Fighter, "the rematch makes it official" no rematch basically a fluke.
@Chaldean4life91 Well I came up during the SF2 Challenge and Turbo days, so I'm definitely a salty dog Veteran, but nowadays if i'm not on yahoo chess, i play marvel vs capcom 2, love that game!
oh cool. yea i grew playing SF2 and SFA, was very young though. i play SF4 mostly now. im trying to get back on chess now, much more rewarding than SF lol.
Ok, the way I see it is that yes, Garry definitely did not play his best during the 6th game. But that definitely is a lot different than him being fed up and quitting because he knew that he was going to win. And anyways, the point of these chess matches were not to prove that Garry was a bad chess player. It was to prove what technology at the time could do. It is similar to what IBM is doing now with Watson. Just because Watson may win jeopardy doesn't mean Ken Jennings is terrible.
Seriously, a computer that sees 10^20 moves ahead would easily be able to see the possibility of a checkmate if it took Kasparov's "bait". Also, IBM could easily have achieved "human-like behavior" with fairly simple algorithms. Kasparov still remains the greatest chess player in history and I do not think any less of him for losing to deep blue. Besides, if he was better prepared I think he would've won the match.
the weakest chess engines can see 10-20 moves ahead, according to your statement, all chess engines would beat Garry right? chess engines only play mathematical moves, and positions that include only itself. it will not play a stratigical position for both players. basically the machine will play the best move it sees. it does not think for example "hmm im going to play this move so he cant play that move." only humans do that.
@Chaldean4life91 I said 10^20 (ten to the twentieth power) moves. Also, fundamentally, there are only two sides to chess - attack and defense. IBM could've easily created a defense algorithm that would sense a possibility of checkmate in few moves if the machine took the bait. In this sense the machine would make an attack move where the possibility of delivering a checkmate was closest, it would also not make moves where the possibility of receiving a checkmate was high.
and like i said the weakest chess... you seem to be missing the point im making. it doesnt matter how many moves ahead a CE can see, its a matter of difference between man and machine. the machine cannot make human plays while the human cannot see or calculate moves as advanced as a machine. what humans do is use photographic memory. we see variations that have been studied before and use plays that are best against them. sometimes we get new variations.
@Chaldean4life91 and you seem to underestimate what algorithms are capable of. IBM was at the forefront of computer technology in those years. It developed the first flight simulation and other virtual environments for the DOD - 15 years before this match. Computers do not have intelligence. Artificial intelligence, however, can be achieved with combination of complex algorithms and "learning" ability - merely an imitation of intelligence but because of sheer computing power it is achievable
now if your talking about Ribky, then fine we can say that it has advanced alorithms and such and such...but a machine that was created in the mid 90's when computer technology was at its base, and the fact that IBM refused to give Garry the in game analysis for DB. on top of that they destroyed it so no one could investigate it. the fact that IBM cheated is very clear. just skip to around the 4:00 area, you'll see what the guy is saying. btw you know any good chess websites?
but if the point your making that DB could see the bait is true, then how will a machine tell the difference of a blunder and a bait? unless the machine is psychic there is no way. it will do the best possible move. if Garry had gave up the pawn due to a blunder would the machine have taken the piece?
@Chaldean4life91 true - the machine cannot tell a difference between a blunder and, seemingly, a brilliant move. But, in many circumstances, neither would a human - especially if the opponent is strong. I was once playing chess against my uncle who's rather good (and i'm a noob) and in one of the moves i gave up a castle to him which, accidentally, opened a possibility for a checkmate. My uncle thought that it was intentional while it wasn't.
In Game 2, there is no perpetual check draw after 44. Kf1. The position is R7/1r3kp1/1qQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/6K1 w - - 0 44
Doing simple analysis with modern programs such as Houdini 1.03a (freeware) or Rybka 4, show that white can win after 44.Kf1. The problem is that people think they understand the motives behind computer moves but the game of chess is more complicated than most realise.
Houdini 1.03a will also play 37. Be4 as Deep Blue did.
Are there any machines that have a potential to defeat the current grandmasters but DeepBlue? If there exist, can they act like a real human to beat them? What I am trying to ask is does a chess engine or a chess machine sacrify their pieces for getting a long-term advantage?
@pashamehmet Yes, Deep Blue can 'sacrifice' its pieces. Chess engine decide their move by first looking into the future, looking for a winning move, it check all move the lead to winning, including the one that sacrifice its own pieces. -When it found the best move, it will do it, even by sacrificing pieces.
Human-like chess engine will not sacrifice a pieces. An amateur will love their queen. Deep Blue did not.
In the past our teachers were always the grandmasters and worldchampions, nowadays our teachers are the computers. They play , solve and compose . So have a look at youtube.com :
In the past our teachers were always the grandmasters and worldchampions, nowadays our teachers are the computers. They play , solve and compose . So have a look at youtube.com :
I don't understand why aren't there any more Computer vs Human chess matches today? Humans have improved their brains a lot since 1997 and I think IBM is scared.
not for long, i am in a computer science class in college and it is predicted that a computer that can outperform the human brain will be developed in 2013.
@arthox2 I heard that as well, but since a large part of the brain has still to be studied (maybe it will outperform the functions of the brain we know about), how is it possible to make a computer which will outperform the whole brain?
@arthox2 It depends on what you mean by "outperform" the human brain. The key feature of the human brain is emotion. In other words, the human mind is often NOT logical and is often random. This is something that a computer can never fully "copy." I'm no computer scientist, but I'm pretty sure that following algorithms and behaving rationally defines a computer. The fact is, humans are NOT rational.
Garry Kasparov lost because top-level chess is about 40% psychological. A computer does not become frustrated, exhausted, and cannot be studied. Judit Polgar won a game against Kasparov because, in her own words, she played his moves from a game that he won -- a purely psychological tactic -- he was now playing himself.
Garry lost. I've never heard of people denying his loss. Why don't you just deny the holocaust too, while you're at it?
@gotaids The question isn't whether he lost. The question is HOW he lost. Did he lose to a computer that was simply ahead of its time (1990s) or did he lose to shady methods?
There is no doubt that any chess engine today could easily defeat Kasparov. The best chess engines today have ratings of over 3000. In 1997 or whenever the match was, computers weren't nearly this strong.
if a computer is allowed to use opening books humans should be allowed to use a program like shredder or rybka to calculate the endgame positions , then the game is even...
that game was rigged... human intervention for sure. I agree with your assessments. In my view opening books with a 10-20 million library should not be allowed for computers in matches like these. It a clear "cheat-sheet" advantage, and has nothing to do with calculating ability's. Opening books saves the computers from the strategic errors.
@Conzipe @Conzipe right, but in my opinion if you have a very strong computer to run Fritz 12
it´s simply impossible to beat it (standart chess mode). just to you have idea in that
problem (search for An "Unsolved Mathematical Chess Problem" to see the problem ) the Rybka 4 and Chess master 11th could not solve the mate but it was no problem to Fritz 12. just check it out. see you
Some 'obvious' moves the computer didn't do is because a computer, no matter how smart it is, has no common sense. A single mistake or something the computer doesn't see far enough or didn't thing was actually a threat. I think computers can easily beat people in the future one day. Their moves may seem ingenious, but it all comes down to numbers. I think IBM did something fishy, but I also think computers will win out.
IBM could have humiliated Kasparov further, vindicated themselves, and got an even more good publicity for themselves by revealing the move logs .... but they didn't ..... Instead they packed up and ran. Deep Blue had a "nudge" .... even if it were just to switch the game algorithm at that key moment in game two. I felt sorry for Kasparov. Comparisions with modern programs like Rybka are not relevant. They play differently off the bat.
Well, since a computer can do a deep search and see the good material gain in the future (or the checkmate. Chess engines I've used before calculate material and choose the best in about 5 moves, but if it sees a mate in the next few moves, it will take it and favor it above all). I was interested though when they refused to provide the log of the game...
funnymadman4 1 month ago
Anyway, to the question why deep blue played differnt in the second game. Chess engines use heuristics (very key in ai). In these algorithms as a programmer you have the chance to modify some parameter so the search behaves different. As a programmer you have to test it to know which parameter shift a bit to greatens the effectivness! There is no need to postulate a human, if you know somethin about the theory of ai!
Markus112358 1 month ago
Whats your point? The human was and IS beaten by the computer algorithms. You CANT beat a computer with a deep search range, it's impossible for a human. Today we can build computers with a very great search deepness. I heard a number of about 40 on a todays supercomputer. Its just unbeatable, today and ever in the future. Chess programms are today very less interesting for research, because its just search, and search is much easier (mostly) than for example pattern matching.
Markus112358 1 month ago
Magnus Carlsen is #1 now...
OverLordGoldDragon 1 month ago
The only i don't understand is the accent of a critic in time 3:45?, i mean what was he really said?, did he said : Instead of winning 2 pawns, it plays a strategic move, which secures the win in a long term game?. So, can you tell me what he really said guys?.
BuZZxQSxCLAN 2 months ago
I understand the suspicion regarding IBM's refusal for a rematch, and in regards to the human characteristics of the game 2 moves. That being said Game 2 was not a draw, and being fed up by Game 6 does not mean he won.
dante862 2 months ago
cheated my ass... by this time 2011 even a kid would understand
sukanta201111 3 months ago in playlist Kasparov
why are pawns moving backwards at 00:25 ?
rishicomplex 3 months ago
schach-brett.de
Schachbenno 3 months ago
According to Wiki the logs were handed over
fred2028 3 months ago
I didn't know kasparov was a bad loser :)
ifri1000 3 months ago
kasparov is just a terrible loser; he is always saying that they cheated on him and that he is the best player in history.Fischer was the best chess player in history he could have beat kasparov anytime:)
uchihadante77 4 months ago
@uchihadante77 shut up you stupid japanese, kasparov is the best player ever. just read his books you idiot!
destoroy4 4 months ago
@uchihadante77 Fischer refused to play karpov because both of them knew that karpov was better... How could be able to stand a chance with kasparov. Just take in mind that kasparov is a new-school player, much more well prepared than fischer was !
urzareaper 4 months ago
@urzareaper No one in any competitive sport would ever chicken out because they thought their opponent was better. The only guy in recent history to do that was Mayweather and that's another can of worms...
GreasemonkeyCGI 4 months ago
he got his ass kicked. period
tseitz123 4 months ago
Why can't we just accept that machines might do some things better than humans? I mean, if someone would ride the Tour de France on a motor cycle, of course he would win. Technology wins this time, but that doesn't make Kasparov any bad human player.
Grafschnitzel 4 months ago
@Grafschnitzel That's obvious, but the IBM team was way to secretive for it not to be foul play. There was absolutely no reason for them to hide stuff from the player. IBM is the only entity in the history of computer chess to pull a stunt like this and it's no surprise that they would immediately bow out after their stocks rose. Even the Houdini and Rybka teams don't do this and they would demolish deep blue.
GreasemonkeyCGI 4 months ago
@Grafschnitzel Because if they do that chess will die, nobody would play chess next generation would be computer vs computer xD
ifri1000 3 months ago
How is being fed up and giving up a win? That's just being a sore loser in my book.
Rasshode 4 months ago
i think kasparov could havew klearned some things from bobby...no way fischer would allow any of that shit to happen..give me logs of game two or i quit...period
NekysAcherontios 5 months ago
@NekysAcherontios Fischer wasn't going to beat deep blue with GM interference as well.
GreasemonkeyCGI 4 months ago
@GreasemonkeyCGI point is fischer would have walked out of the match if they did to him what they did to garry..garry was too soft on those pencilnecks
NekysAcherontios 4 months ago
@NekysAcherontios Yeah no way would Fischer sit quietly and just let them cheat.
GreasemonkeyCGI 4 months ago
i like the turk
LuisGuillermoBravo 5 months ago
Kasparov lost. Just like any grandmaster could nowadays lose to retail chess computers like Deep Fritz and Deep Rybka.
can0mark 5 months ago
@can0mark they beat them fairly often actually computers arnt powerful enough yet there are too many possibilities to compute them all out through pure number crunching yet.
bobbysnobby 4 months ago
Nah f5scher was 36ng gone before kasparov came
willsmackyoudown 6 months ago
Hahah the computer didnt cheat.
willsmackyoudown 6 months ago
So who was the GREATEST chess player of them all? AND, will there ever be a player that beats today's modern and best chess computer program(s)?
Thanks in advance for any and all of your friendly comments!!
guyNbluejeans 6 months ago
@guyNbluejeans
Fischer played moves that Fritz didnt even pick up.
willsmackyoudown 6 months ago
@willsmackyoudown Yeah, Fischer and these other chess giants are all pretty amazing. I think I read somewhere that Kasparov beat Fischer once or twice but, I think, Fischer wasn't in his prime.
I sure wish I could play the game even just half as well as them.
guyNbluejeans 6 months ago
@guyNbluejeans
Its practically impossible to compare two players from a different era. Paul Morphy was a brilliant player, but would have been no match for modern grand masters because the understanding of the game has changed a lot since then.
can0mark 5 months ago
@can0mark Okay, thanks for sharing!
guyNbluejeans 5 months ago
@guyNbluejeans
Oh, and just to be subjective. Paul Morphy is my favorite chess player of all time. The way he played the game is both amazing and hilarious.
can0mark 5 months ago
@can0mark I never heard the word hilarious used in the context you put it in. Interesting.:-)
guyNbluejeans 5 months ago
the title should be The Machine vs Machines
nataschmidtt 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7:16 Sooooo Fairry I mean Garry was technically saying he rage quit every time the video game gained an upper hand
Phalystrix 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sooooo he was technically saying he rage quit every time the video game gained an upper hand?
Phalystrix 6 months ago
@vikinggary How could Deep Blue have cheated? It beat Kasparov fair and square, I dont understand how it could cheat? Slip more pieces on to the board when nobody was looking?!
shawndimery 6 months ago
@shawndimery I think cheat is not a word IBM would like you to use. There may be, however, grounds to suggest they augmented their playing somewhat; there was a lot of behind the scenes secrecy for what was, supposedly, an excercise in computer AI engineering. Personally I think Mr Kasparov was beaten fairly but it would help IBMs position if they were not so unpleasant about who and what were in the backrooms. The full Movie ' Game Over - Kasparov against the machine' is an interesting watch.
W0rdMule 6 months ago
computer has no aesthetic....wins by attrition.....kasparov frustrated by this, v suspect IBM not release logs, I no before realize this
corneliusfelix 7 months ago
The computer, Deep Blue still not have what Kasparov has....... a human brain. !!!!!!!!!
Shaky6277 7 months ago
@Shaky6277 yeaaaaah well said....
TheLio666 6 months ago
@Shaky6277
i have a brain too? .that should be "a Kasparov's brain"
nataschmidtt 6 months ago
Garry won! I can't see you, I can not hear you.... lalalalalalala!
Weatherlights 8 months ago
This film is out of date. It has been discovered since that the "perpetual check" with which Kasparov could supposedly have have forced a draw was not actually possible at that stage.
Patavinity 8 months ago
sorry, what's the music at the end called? :)
oogiegork 8 months ago
Great video!
Augalv 8 months ago
I would destroy kasparov in chess.
RibR0a5t 9 months ago
@RibR0a5t And I would destroy you. So you may forever remain 2nd. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Always the Silver, never the Gold. Always not quite good enough. Perpetually failing to achieve your objective. An objective which, by the simple factual condition of your opponent, remains an impossibility.
cosg9531 7 months ago
Your comment on Game 6 is hilarious. Yes, it is necessary to admit that Kasparov lost that game, but to balance out the scales a bit we can say that he lost on his own terms. To suggest that "technically speaking" Kasparov had won the game is an appalling perspective on the game itself, and shows no gratitude for it; now we are able to really examine the line that exists between human and machine play.
xXxAceGuyxXx 9 months ago
"Game 6: There was no game...he was fed up. Garry won. Again." - HAHAHAHAAHAHA! XD
MurdocLC 9 months ago
of-course i mean no disrespect to kasparov, he was clearly a chess god, other to say he was a sore loser but i guess he wasn't used to losing, least of all to a machine.
bendaniel81 9 months ago
@bendaniel81 I think he knew he was going to loose well ahead of time so he quit.
vrshowdown 8 months ago
lol i love the sinister background music. yeah it's a big conspiracy guys, there was actually a midgit hiding in their super computer. being a software developer & having written an engine capable of playing chess i can tell you the algorithm is pretty simple, all the computer needs to kick ass is raw computing power to look as many turns ahead as possible & perhaps some simple pre-programmed knowledge of good opening moves. ibm make super computers, have no doubt it had enough computing power.
bendaniel81 9 months ago
from a software developer perspective, yeah, that's definitely fishy that ibm isn't showing any trace logs or software. it's likely that someone was at a computer weeding out moves that were clearly bad, winning to impress stock owners.
shogi is a similar japanese game, and a champion won against a 16 core computer in a very close match. since brute force is extremely impractical due to the breadth of possible moves, the algorithm kept a corpus of winning moves. software's available online.
reinux 10 months ago
If my life depended on it, to win, he would be right down the bottom of the list of people I'd ever want to play.
I think the only chance would be to lock him in the toilet and win on time, or channel bobby fisher..... now that would be a match. ;)
truthcrackers 10 months ago
All arguments make the assumption that you can analyze an AI like you can a human. I've messed with programming AI and there is one thing i can tell you, it is hard to see what is going on in the AI's "head". Sometimes it may make what seems like a brilliant move, other times floundering. This is because there is guessing in algorithms, other times the AI can be focusing on an incorrect variable, and make a move that is good in that respective, but bad for what a human considers the focus.
jarrod1937 10 months ago
Dude he gave up, and was fed up... Kasparov is a great chess player but he lost, he lost... If walk away from the Chess board because ur fed up, u lost... The reason why he left, because He was Trapped and didnt know what to do.... NO OFFENCE KASPAROV
Beatlesforever97 11 months ago
If you ask me, Kasparov is an ass and I don't see why so many people defend his behaviour... indeed not a graceful loser.
demonsangells 11 months ago
by the way what's with the note about jews and armenians... it just doesn't belong to the video!!
27akram 11 months ago
Comment removed
SCEPCOP 3 months ago
@27akram well jews have the highest IQ in the world. it's a proven fact. that's why they are in most positions of western power in all major industries.
SCEPCOP 3 months ago
i don't believe IBM needed to cheat. Back in that day the fact that IBM put out a great game against history's best player is enough credit for IBM... they didn't need to win to show the IT industry who is king. The conspiracy theory about that pawn move is interesting though: however you must know that just as computers do really stupid mistakes they sometimes do some great moves. This pawn move was not exceptional so i cannot dismiss the fact that it was an authentic move!
27akram 11 months ago
27akram
that is not correct, computers dont "sometimes" do good moves or not, it is a machine and machines are always consistent because the machine was created by humans and the machine has rules to play by and has to have the information programmed into it and therefore nothing a computer does is random, the machine, and any machine has had everything that it can do dictated to it. the only change to the computers behavior is the person it was playing against.
ilwa7shhh 11 months ago
wow kasparov way to be a whiney pussy
thephotoperson 11 months ago
@thephotoperson As Kasparov said, he saw Deep Blue making the Karpov-style move. Every chess-program has its analysis log, that can be recorded and read by humans. So why did IBM refuse to show the program logs? So, what rating do you have and would you like to play against me, if you are calling world champ a pussy?
rpdigital17 11 months ago
@rpdigital17 because IBM wrote those logs and don't have to show them. I don't play chess. And yes, I am calling him a pussy because it takes a real man to admit defeat. Even if he thinks that there is foul play you don't just forfeit the final game and declare yourself the winner. That's a pussy move.
thephotoperson 11 months ago
@thephotoperson LOL, IBM didn't write the logs, Deep Blue did. And why do you comment here, when you don't know about playing chess or having defeat? Kasparov has been defeated many times by other chessmasters, that is a part of the game. It was all about the strange behavior of Deep Blue team, they didn't show the logs of the machine, while Kasparov would easily expose his strategy, as he has done many times before. So he got suspitious if there was human player behind the game.
rpdigital17 11 months ago
4:20 i rememebr reading about that, people didnt expect it... some people think that it actually thought for its self. Apparently it wasnt programmed to do that,
iSeiren 11 months ago
Also at 9:40 you spelled "technically" wrong. haha.
TheBastardCommie 11 months ago
Obviously this is just like IBM's Jeopardy machine. How can Watson guess the correct answer to some of those incredibly old-english phrased and difficult questions, however then miss the question about the city named after the World War II vet?
Same concept, it read the board wrong. Poster of this video is in denial.
TheBastardCommie 11 months ago
I hate chess. If I ever buy a horse, that mother fucker better be walking sideways, straight, up and down. None of this two over one up bullshit.
brybry19871987 11 months ago
Gay ?
iTzMLGCSLTheRealPro 11 months ago
@reachyt America would be shit if that happened. But the minority is now the majority. White people are ultimately going to face the consequences. Jewish people will dominate US.
damthatriver09 11 months ago
after years...is there still any chance for human to win a computer?
sprint3rxl 11 months ago
Well I didn't hear Deeper Blue making accusations like Kasparov, even though it could have said "hey this guy played like a grandmaster for the first 5 games then made a stupid move in the last one, may he was being helped!". Even back then computers had stopped being materialistic. Kasparov was beaten fair and square but his ego can't take it so it's easier to go for the conspiracy..
melomaniakjm 1 year ago
Hi , please give me a one thousand dollars, because I need it very much.
PayPal - marekofierski@onet.eu
Thank you
kingshapur 1 year ago
@kingshapur thats pretty lame
jabrightlefthook 1 year ago
What is the soundtrack called? :)
QueniasNolik 1 year ago
kasparov is a perrier woodman twins...wtf
zaipanv 1 year ago
Here is to Kasparov. A man, a great man!
Chaxar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why don't you suck his cock?!
Ukulum 1 year ago
How can a computer cheat? It's impossible
McXZealot 1 year ago
I'm no expert about chess, and in no way i want to rule out the human intervention hypothesis. But let me point out that this expectancy of a crude and sistematic behavior from a computer is just simplicistic. Such a complicated game as chess requires an equally complicated software, which can EASILY end up in unpredictable behaviors. If you've ever coded something you know that. And the claim that it would run for an immediate catch is pure opinion. A computer CAN be programmed to think ahead.
RGMadSimon 1 year ago
@RGMadSimon at the time chess software had not reached significant level to beat strong gms. Today is different and software (Rybka, Fritz, etc..) is more important than hardware. Deep blue strength was considered to be its enormous calculation power, which does not mean that it could understand chess as a Top grandmaster does. It is important to compare game 1 and game 2. In game 1 the computer showed its real face, purely calculative power without understanding.game 2 was other story
fresniak 1 year ago
whats the song?
TheRsMuffin 1 year ago
I have a small question, forget about Human vs Computer type moves and consider this, If the computer captured the pawn it can place it's position in an evaluation function and determine that it's position may be slightly inferior despite a material advantage, So it's not at all surprising to me that it decided against capturing the pawn. The real question is Would a computer engine capture a queen if it lead to a forced mate say 300 moves out? I don't think so.
KBoogs719 1 year ago
@KBoogs719
interesting statement. i believe it would. it would take a pawn, let alone a queen, if it meant an advantage in pieces. computers can very easily be tricked no matter how much technology or "algorithms" are behind it. chess is a mind game too. much like poker. the best poker player IMO would never lose to a poker machine (unless it somehow cheats i.e deep blue).
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
@Chaldean4life91 It seems like brains work a lot like computers, it's just a matter of installing the right software and having enough power to process it. I could easily see a computer in the future being modeled very realistically after a human brain. But who's to say our brain is anything special, it's easy to imagine that a non neuron based computing style would be much more effective. Also our brains are mysterious yes, but with greater understanding they will be less so, it's not magic.
heatmourning33 1 year ago
@Chaldean4life91 well that's my point, i don't think the computer will capture if it led to the computer being mated even if the mate were many moves out. if they weren't able to make an objective judgment on a given position they would be horrible analysis tools and poor competitors seeing as they would not be able to "get past" a good sacrifice so it would be a must that they be able to beat this type of play.
KBoogs719 1 year ago
@Chaldean4life91 Chess is not a "mind game" like poker, all the information is on the board, there is no hidden info as there is in poker. Poker also involves luck. Chess has no luck involved (in game). Because of these two things, of course it's easy to beat poker programs.
xxxIronLeexxx 1 year ago
@xxxIronLeexxx soooo true chess is closer to life no luck just statistics
jabrightlefthook 1 year ago
@jabrightlefthook Yeah. What I was trying to say is I like Chess because there is no luck involved. But I play some poker because of the money to be made and sometimes get lucky (but not often). Chess is more interesting and fun. Poker for me is just for the money. In fact I hate poker, but just so happen to be just good enough to eek out a bit of money from it. In life there is SOME luck I think, you may win the lotto or whatever, or just simply not be born in North Korea, for example.. lol.
xxxIronLeexxx 1 year ago
@xxxIronLeexxx yea definately i like poker too for the money. In fact i should just say i love money :) , its the blood of this nation. winning the lotto ties into statistics but i definately see your point about being born in north Korea lolllllll very funny but im going to try to top that....... what about not being born in China as a female child into a household full of cannibalistic baby eaters and Chinese black market people traffickers now is that luck or is that luck ......
jabrightlefthook 1 year ago
@jabrightlefthook I don't actually like money, I just feel pressure to make it, or, not get any girls, not eat, live on the street, whatever. I tend to think of money as what it actually is- just little pieces of paper with numbers printed on it. Some people have more little pieces of paper than other people, it doesn't make them any better. Poker seems like a (somewhat) easy way to make a little money, with say 3 years play time. Chess it takes a lifetime to be a GM. But I'd rather be that.
xxxIronLeexxx 1 year ago
@xxxIronLeexxx i agree with you completely the only reason i love money is because of what it can do for me the pleasures it allows me to engage in keeping myself pretty lol keeping things right in my life but hell yea GM is a great mark to leave behind how long have you been playing chess ive ony been playing 3 an a half years
jabrightlefthook 1 year ago
@jabrightlefthook Well I played Checkers actually for 5 years, I managed to get a Master rating (2200) in that, then quit that and took up Chess and I've been playing it for 2 and a half years. I'm not really any good, I basically maintain my starting rating of 1500 on FICS. I don't take it serious anyway, I just want to do it for fun and I also find it helps with my mental focus. Because the whole time I'm playing, I'm focused on the game. So in other things I can do that easier, be focused.
xxxIronLeexxx 1 year ago
@xxxIronLeexxx makes alot of sense my friend my rating in chess is only 1650 thats why ive been on youtube looking for clever openings unorthodox playing and working on my tactics but yea i love the focus that comes with chess i learned how apply it to my life im very careful about the desicions i make.im also a boxer i have been using some chess philosophy to help me,i enjoy boxing for the same reason i love chess out-smarting someone is the greatest feeling next to sex lol
jabrightlefthook 1 year ago
@jabrightlefthook Oh....1650 is pretty good. Do you play on FICS?...yeah I saw your profile with the fighting stuff there. That's cool. Good to defend yourself in a real swift manner if need be. And yes...sex. That comes #1 with me. Everything else is a distant #2 to that! lol... The focus thing helps in that respect as well, actually.
xxxIronLeexxx 1 year ago
@xxxIronLeexxx mental focus for sex lol sounds good man i please my girl everytime intellect does play a role you gotta pay attention to her facial expressions body movement and sounds they all speak words like ."i like this" i love this" "do more of this" not so much of this" be more gentle" over time an observant man develops a certain set of skills to keep her cumming and cumming and thus loving me and mines forever more lol
jabrightlefthook 1 year ago
@jabrightlefthook Yeah... I meant just being "in the moment" yourself, so as to be able to perform, be focused on her. Anyway....that's a whole different subject...how did we get talking about this again? lol
xxxIronLeexxx 1 year ago
@xxxIronLeexxx 1500 is good. it means you can beat 99 percent of people in the world since 99 percent of people suck at chess. lol
SCEPCOP 3 months ago
@xxxIronLeexxx hey whats up man hows everything have u been playing any chess recently
jabrightlefthook 11 months ago
@jabrightlefthook Hey man! I been playing a little bit in FICS, but not as much as I used to. You play there? we should play sometime.
xxxIronLeexxx 11 months ago
@xxxIronLeexxx i dont even know what FICS is . Is that a chess website or something ? but yea i would like to play against you when you have the time . also if you know chess notation we can play without a website all i have to do is tell you my moveand you tell me yours and we set it uop on the board.
jabrightlefthook 11 months ago
@jabrightlefthook Oh... ok well FICS is the most popular free site to play chess, from what I hear. It's called "FICS" because it means "Free Internet Chess Server". I guess it was the first one ever. Wow I'm sounding like fuckin' spam here...lol...anyway you can join at- freechess(dotorg). You have to download a client there to play on, I use "Babas" (it's the best one soIi recomend that one). It's good because rated play is free too, everything free. If you sign up let me know and we'll play.
xxxIronLeexxx 11 months ago
Something I will say to IBM, that I used to say to my boys when they beat me at Street Fighter, "the rematch makes it official" no rematch basically a fluke.
KBoogs719 1 year ago
@KBoogs719
WHAT!!! i would never expect a street fighter player to be watching chess (no offense). what SF game do you play?
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
@Chaldean4life91 Well I came up during the SF2 Challenge and Turbo days, so I'm definitely a salty dog Veteran, but nowadays if i'm not on yahoo chess, i play marvel vs capcom 2, love that game!
KBoogs719 1 year ago
@KBoogs719
oh cool. yea i grew playing SF2 and SFA, was very young though. i play SF4 mostly now. im trying to get back on chess now, much more rewarding than SF lol.
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
no pig state can beat any russian at the intellectual level
USSRanewHOPE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Student: "Master, what is the most complicated game man has created?"
Master: "Chess."
Student: "What about Go?"
Master: "Go has always existed."
lance1236451 1 year ago
0:25 - 0:29 - LOL, fake chess moves !
FDGOD74 1 year ago
Ok, the way I see it is that yes, Garry definitely did not play his best during the 6th game. But that definitely is a lot different than him being fed up and quitting because he knew that he was going to win. And anyways, the point of these chess matches were not to prove that Garry was a bad chess player. It was to prove what technology at the time could do. It is similar to what IBM is doing now with Watson. Just because Watson may win jeopardy doesn't mean Ken Jennings is terrible.
jjisnotme 1 year ago
مش معقول يا جماعه : اخترعوا كمبيوتر مخصوص مبرمج عليه جميع حركات وطرق الشطرنج وفى النهايه كساروف بردو يفوز
mostafawahbagabr 1 year ago
مش معقول يا جماعه : اخترعوا كمبيوتر مخصوص مبرمج عليه جميع حركات وطرق الشطرنج وفى النهايه كساروف بردو يفوز
mostafawahbagabr 1 year ago
who gives a famn. with today's programming, a computer can be almost unbeatable
bgnalm 1 year ago
Seriously, a computer that sees 10^20 moves ahead would easily be able to see the possibility of a checkmate if it took Kasparov's "bait". Also, IBM could easily have achieved "human-like behavior" with fairly simple algorithms. Kasparov still remains the greatest chess player in history and I do not think any less of him for losing to deep blue. Besides, if he was better prepared I think he would've won the match.
g0rsk13g4n9st4 1 year ago 2
@g0rsk13g4n9st4
the weakest chess engines can see 10-20 moves ahead, according to your statement, all chess engines would beat Garry right? chess engines only play mathematical moves, and positions that include only itself. it will not play a stratigical position for both players. basically the machine will play the best move it sees. it does not think for example "hmm im going to play this move so he cant play that move." only humans do that.
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
@Chaldean4life91 I said 10^20 (ten to the twentieth power) moves. Also, fundamentally, there are only two sides to chess - attack and defense. IBM could've easily created a defense algorithm that would sense a possibility of checkmate in few moves if the machine took the bait. In this sense the machine would make an attack move where the possibility of delivering a checkmate was closest, it would also not make moves where the possibility of receiving a checkmate was high.
g0rsk13g4n9st4 1 year ago
@g0rsk13g4n9st4
and like i said the weakest chess... you seem to be missing the point im making. it doesnt matter how many moves ahead a CE can see, its a matter of difference between man and machine. the machine cannot make human plays while the human cannot see or calculate moves as advanced as a machine. what humans do is use photographic memory. we see variations that have been studied before and use plays that are best against them. sometimes we get new variations.
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
@Chaldean4life91 and you seem to underestimate what algorithms are capable of. IBM was at the forefront of computer technology in those years. It developed the first flight simulation and other virtual environments for the DOD - 15 years before this match. Computers do not have intelligence. Artificial intelligence, however, can be achieved with combination of complex algorithms and "learning" ability - merely an imitation of intelligence but because of sheer computing power it is achievable
g0rsk13g4n9st4 1 year ago
@g0rsk13g4n9st4
now if your talking about Ribky, then fine we can say that it has advanced alorithms and such and such...but a machine that was created in the mid 90's when computer technology was at its base, and the fact that IBM refused to give Garry the in game analysis for DB. on top of that they destroyed it so no one could investigate it. the fact that IBM cheated is very clear. just skip to around the 4:00 area, you'll see what the guy is saying. btw you know any good chess websites?
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
@g0rsk13g4n9st4
id like to play you.
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
@g0rsk13g4n9st4
but if the point your making that DB could see the bait is true, then how will a machine tell the difference of a blunder and a bait? unless the machine is psychic there is no way. it will do the best possible move. if Garry had gave up the pawn due to a blunder would the machine have taken the piece?
Chaldean4life91 1 year ago
@Chaldean4life91 true - the machine cannot tell a difference between a blunder and, seemingly, a brilliant move. But, in many circumstances, neither would a human - especially if the opponent is strong. I was once playing chess against my uncle who's rather good (and i'm a noob) and in one of the moves i gave up a castle to him which, accidentally, opened a possibility for a checkmate. My uncle thought that it was intentional while it wasn't.
g0rsk13g4n9st4 1 year ago
Gary's just a whiny bitch ass sore loser.
eskimobronco 1 year ago
Comment removed
eskimobronco 1 year ago
In Game 2, there is no perpetual check draw after 44. Kf1. The position is R7/1r3kp1/1qQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/6K1 w - - 0 44
Doing simple analysis with modern programs such as Houdini 1.03a (freeware) or Rybka 4, show that white can win after 44.Kf1. The problem is that people think they understand the motives behind computer moves but the game of chess is more complicated than most realise.
Houdini 1.03a will also play 37. Be4 as Deep Blue did.
intagrand 1 year ago
I hear they had a lot of people on the computer programming it to do moves and making sure they can't lose.
JennylXJ9 1 year ago
garry kasparov wasnt jew. it is only jewish propagandy
PLONKA123 1 year ago
@PLONKA123 He was born actually to a Jewish father and so what? He admits so and is not ashamed of it and there is ntohign wrong with being jewish
adhdboy699 1 year ago
I can beat a computer any day. It's done by using a move that requires very little study or understanding. I call it swinging the sledgehammer.
Danthemanlyman7 1 year ago
Who do you think it was that they pulled in to fill in for Blue?
adamrooski 1 year ago
Yeah I don't buy it, it was rigged, and the fact Kasparov beat I just one time defeats the purpose of Deep Blue.
It's not unbeatable.
TheTruthfulAsshole 1 year ago
Are there any machines that have a potential to defeat the current grandmasters but DeepBlue? If there exist, can they act like a real human to beat them? What I am trying to ask is does a chess engine or a chess machine sacrify their pieces for getting a long-term advantage?
pashamehmet 1 year ago
@pashamehmet Yes, Deep Blue can 'sacrifice' its pieces. Chess engine decide their move by first looking into the future, looking for a winning move, it check all move the lead to winning, including the one that sacrifice its own pieces. -When it found the best move, it will do it, even by sacrificing pieces.
Human-like chess engine will not sacrifice a pieces. An amateur will love their queen. Deep Blue did not.
xponen 1 year ago
Lol, they are called bugs :O
teatime90 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the past our teachers were always the grandmasters and worldchampions, nowadays our teachers are the computers. They play , solve and compose . So have a look at youtube.com :
/watch?v=mwYQRteeHbE
or give in only : NEWEKLOWSKY
Moremover 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the past our teachers were always the grandmasters and worldchampions, nowadays our teachers are the computers. They play , solve and compose . So have a look at youtube.com :
/watch?v=mwYQRteeHbE
or give in only : NEWEKLOWSKY
Moremover 1 year ago
I don't understand why aren't there any more Computer vs Human chess matches today? Humans have improved their brains a lot since 1997 and I think IBM is scared.
Asiats1 1 year ago
@Asiats1 No their are some but they are msotly with lower rated grandmasters and alot less public
adhdboy699 1 year ago
@adhdboy699 No human today can beat the latest chest programs. That's a fact.
Asiats1 1 year ago
@Asiats1 I did not say they could but i said they still played them,
adhdboy699 1 year ago
@Asiats1 thats a overstatement with no proof
blackoil911 1 year ago
Comment removed
exodiaj 1 year ago
vc é di mais
mais não ganha de mim ainda ....
quer ver ...vem no brasil
maycon2014 1 year ago
human brain is the most powerful computer in the world
lebedev9114 1 year ago
@lebedev9114
not for long, i am in a computer science class in college and it is predicted that a computer that can outperform the human brain will be developed in 2013.
just saying, shits kinda creepy.
arthox2 1 year ago
@arthox2 I heard that as well, but since a large part of the brain has still to be studied (maybe it will outperform the functions of the brain we know about), how is it possible to make a computer which will outperform the whole brain?
lebedev9114 1 year ago
@arthox2 It depends on what you mean by "outperform" the human brain. The key feature of the human brain is emotion. In other words, the human mind is often NOT logical and is often random. This is something that a computer can never fully "copy." I'm no computer scientist, but I'm pretty sure that following algorithms and behaving rationally defines a computer. The fact is, humans are NOT rational.
PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD 1 year ago
@arthox2 Lol, computers has outperform human brain a long ago...
V1taLiy86 1 year ago
it dosen´t matter in my opinion, we´re still human and not an empty machine.
mauriciochess 1 year ago
Garry Kasparov lost because top-level chess is about 40% psychological. A computer does not become frustrated, exhausted, and cannot be studied. Judit Polgar won a game against Kasparov because, in her own words, she played his moves from a game that he won -- a purely psychological tactic -- he was now playing himself.
Garry lost. I've never heard of people denying his loss. Why don't you just deny the holocaust too, while you're at it?
oh... wait.
gotaids 1 year ago
@gotaids The question isn't whether he lost. The question is HOW he lost. Did he lose to a computer that was simply ahead of its time (1990s) or did he lose to shady methods?
There is no doubt that any chess engine today could easily defeat Kasparov. The best chess engines today have ratings of over 3000. In 1997 or whenever the match was, computers weren't nearly this strong.
PrUnEJuIcEtHeThIrD 1 year ago 2
fucking jewish company what can you expect.
fsm83 1 year ago
Kasparov was a real champ
speedyweedylemon 1 year ago
so it means gary won the game
TheFuneralDay666 1 year ago
Did Gary ever use The Queen's Gambit move?
Zephyr60 1 year ago
@Zephyr60. It is hard to express my contempt for you, you sad, sad person.
therapsids 1 year ago
ibm sponsored the holocaust. they gave machines to hitler so he could keep data on the jews in the camps
mattfca 1 year ago
ALGUIEN SABE DONDE PUEDO ENCONTRAR EN LA WEB EL CHESSMASTER 6000 0 7000?
hernan267 1 year ago
if a computer is allowed to use opening books humans should be allowed to use a program like shredder or rybka to calculate the endgame positions , then the game is even...
bodypowr 1 year ago
that game was rigged... human intervention for sure. I agree with your assessments. In my view opening books with a 10-20 million library should not be allowed for computers in matches like these. It a clear "cheat-sheet" advantage, and has nothing to do with calculating ability's. Opening books saves the computers from the strategic errors.
bodypowr 1 year ago
@Conzipe @Conzipe right, but in my opinion if you have a very strong computer to run Fritz 12
it´s simply impossible to beat it (standart chess mode). just to you have idea in that
problem (search for An "Unsolved Mathematical Chess Problem" to see the problem ) the Rybka 4 and Chess master 11th could not solve the mate but it was no problem to Fritz 12. just check it out. see you
ducksaj 1 year ago
Some 'obvious' moves the computer didn't do is because a computer, no matter how smart it is, has no common sense. A single mistake or something the computer doesn't see far enough or didn't thing was actually a threat. I think computers can easily beat people in the future one day. Their moves may seem ingenious, but it all comes down to numbers. I think IBM did something fishy, but I also think computers will win out.
carmodifire 1 year ago
What kasparov can say about Fritz 12 nowadays??
it´s simply impossible to beat it......(in a normal match)
ducksaj 1 year ago
kasparov should not be such a sore loser, you wouldn't see usain bolt complaining if a machine beat him in the 100 metres
dopeythedragon 1 year ago
A matter of time, clomputers will beat human being in chess. In all other fields, human beings let the computers work it out. No challenge..
rolandytho 1 year ago
i get it. kasparov is the machine and deep blue a very sensitive human.
just lovely.
najdorf 1 year ago
IBM could have humiliated Kasparov further, vindicated themselves, and got an even more good publicity for themselves by revealing the move logs .... but they didn't ..... Instead they packed up and ran. Deep Blue had a "nudge" .... even if it were just to switch the game algorithm at that key moment in game two. I felt sorry for Kasparov. Comparisions with modern programs like Rybka are not relevant. They play differently off the bat.
SearchBucket 1 year ago
COMPIOUTERS CAN'T DO DAT!!!!
ahahahahahhaha
alreadytakengamw 1 year ago