How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
1–10 of 17 posts
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#2This must be a mite frustrating.
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#3More like.. The Ghost in the Machine.
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#4I've always been of the opinion that the computers should have to play through qualifying tournaments to get to a "title" match like this.
IBM had thousands of matches to prep their player and Kasparov had none. This disparity is crazy for top level chess.
I've also never heard about this match being discussed in terms of the FIDE-PCA rift, which may have given the challenger more leverage as IBM could shop between two champions. With a unified chess world, Kasparov might have been able to put the screws to IBM for a more "fair" match.
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#5It's interesting, but it's not news. Nate Silver published this information in his book The Signal and the Noise back in 2012.
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#6It's interesting, but it's not news. Nate Silver published this information in his book The Signal and the Noise back in 2012.
Link to the chapter: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rage-against-the-machine...
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#7I've always been of the opinion that the computers should have to play through qualifying tournaments to get to a "title" match like this. IBM had thousands of matches to prep their player and Kasparov had none. This disparity is crazy for top level chess. I've also never heard about this match being discussed in terms of the FIDE-PCA rift, which may have given the challenger more leverage as IBM could shop between t…
> With a unified chess world, Kasparov might have been able to put the screws to IBM for a more "fair" match
I'm not up on the details of FIDE vs PCA. However, Wikipedia [1] claims that Kasparov created PCA. So he was actually responsible for the rift. But you're claiming this rift hurt his leverage?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Chess_Association
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#8Direct link to documentary
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11694550
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#9I've always been of the opinion that the computers should have to play through qualifying tournaments to get to a "title" match like this. IBM had thousands of matches to prep their player and Kasparov had none. This disparity is crazy for top level chess. I've also never heard about this match being discussed in terms of the FIDE-PCA rift, which may have given the challenger more leverage as IBM could shop between t…
> With a unified chess world, Kasparov might have been able to put the screws to IBM for a more "fair" match I'm not up on the details of FIDE vs PCA. However, Wikipedia [1] claims that Kasparov created PCA. So he was actually responsible for the rift. But you're claiming this rift hurt his leverage? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Chess_Association
He was the PCA champ, FIDE had their own champ (or might threaten to, I can't remember). IBM is about to throw a boatload of cash in hyping the event.
From my perspective it would seem anyone claiming to be champion would be under pressure to play or risk having the other league's champion be hyped as the best player in the world by IBM.
I think without the split that Kasparov may have been able to dictate more firm terms. Examples such as requiring previous play by the computer, 3rd party auditing, release of logs afterward, etc...
Re: How a computer error helped Deep Blue beat humanity's best chess player
#10I've always been of the opinion that the computers should have to play through qualifying tournaments to get to a "title" match like this. IBM had thousands of matches to prep their player and Kasparov had none. This disparity is crazy for top level chess. I've also never heard about this match being discussed in terms of the FIDE-PCA rift, which may have given the challenger more leverage as IBM could shop between t…
I doubt the FIDE-PCA rift really mattered. The FIDE champ at the time was Karpov, who 1) had nowhere near the brand name recognition that Kasparov did, and 2) was not even close to Kasparov's strength. It's not even clear Karpov would agree to such a match even if it had been proposed. He would have most likely lost miserably against Deep Blue, and he probably knew it too.