Kasparov/Deep Blue - Place Your Bets
Graham Laight
then.. but maybe.."
It's time for sporting types everywhere to nail their colours to the mast!
Who's going to win this match?
I say Kasparov, because although Deep Blue is probably the best piece of
computer hardware chess has ever been played on, the programming team have a
poor track record. If they've had help from other programmers, I may be proved
wrong.
Also, I believe that if Gary gets well ahead on the score, he'll experiment,
which will allow the computer to win a game or two.
--
Graham Laight
Graham...@largotim.co.uk
Joe Stella
Graham Laight <grahaml> writes:
>Who's going to win this match?
>I say Kasparov, [...]
So do I; leaving aside the question of whether it is possible to
build a computer world champ, I belive that DB is being rushed into
this match before it can possibly be fully ready.
Joe S.
Daniel A. Thies
create something that would beat Kasparov using the resources that Deep
Blue's team has available. I just think that it's highly unlikely that
they've actually done so in such a short time. Still, this is definitely
the first time anyone has even given the computer a chance.
On the other hand, Hsu & Co. may have discovered a whole lot of things the
rest of us don't know. He used to post all the time, now we just get the
occasional cryptic post like "gee, Bob, you'd be right about SEE vs.
MVV/LVA, except that you haven't discovered the golden secret of 'PVS
Nullmove hydrogenization in standing puddles' yet." Maybe they're keeping
mum because they know too much, and maybe they're too busy trying to
figure out why it randomly gives up its queen for no compensation.
Dan
Graham Laight
War, "You're never ready... You're always asking if there's more you could
do.."
--
Graham Laight
Graham...@largotim.co.uk
James Dwulit
3 wins 3 draws 0 lost
Jimbo
--
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottelston Pie,
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
Ask me a riddle and I reply,
"Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie " -winnie-the-pooh
lde...@hal.intranet.on.ca
> Right. After 6 months wait, the big game's 11 days away now. No more "If..
> then.. but maybe.."
>
> It's time for sporting types everywhere to nail their colours to the mast!
>
> Who's going to win this match?
>
> I say Kasparov, because although Deep Blue is probably the best piece of
> computer hardware chess has ever been played on, the programming team have a
> poor track record. If they've had help from other programmers, I may be proved
> wrong.
>
> Also, I believe that if Gary gets well ahead on the score, he'll experiment,
> which will allow the computer to win a game or two.
> --
> Graham Laight
> Graham...@largotim.co.uk
Will the match be available on the internet? If so, how can I look in?
Steven J. Edwards
Kasparov 4.5 vs. DB 1.5
Kasparov will blow one game due to a blunder, and he will draw one
game after overextending himself. After achieving at least 3.5 points
and a guaranteed victory (and the money), his play will become more
risky.
Kasparov's disadvantages:
1) DB will have all of his games online.
2) He has no knowledge of DB's past games.
3) He knows that DB has endgame databases, so he cannot afford to
enter an endgame if his position is in doubt.
Kasparov's advantages:
1) DB is likely to be overmaterialistic and so can be expected to fall
for gambits and other sacrifices that migth best be declined.
2) Kasparov can see strategic trends that may take 20 to 30 moves to
appear on the board.
3) Kasparov has a planning facility built-in.
-- Steven (s...@mv.mv.com)
Chris Whittington
>
> Right. After 6 months wait, the big game's 11 days away now. No more "If..
> then.. but maybe.."
>
> It's time for sporting types everywhere to nail their colours to the mast!
>
> Who's going to win this match?
>
I'ld give the edge to Kasparov (ELO 2750):
Deep Blue ELO:
1000 ELO Base + 200 ELO for evaluation function + 1600 ELO for
search at c. 5,000,000,000 nodes per second = 2800.
But: take away 50 ELO for a likely programming oversight causing
a game to be lost.
Take away 100-200 ELo fro Kasparov preparation against computers, and
Deep Blue is down to 2650 or so. Maybe give Deep Blue 50 ELo back for
Kasparov not needing to win all the games and settling for draws: 2700.
I'ld give the following odds:
Anyone interested in a virtual bet on Kasparov - Deep Blue ?
Deep Blue Kasparov Odds
--------- -------- -------
0 6 8 to 1
0.5 5.5 4 to 1
1 5 3 to 1
1.5 4.5 2 to 1
2 4 2 to 1
2.5 3.5 3 to 1
3 3 8 to 1
3.5 2.5 8 to 1
4 2 33 to 1
4.5 1.5 33 to 1
5 1 50 to 1
5.5 0.5 50 to 1
6 0 100 to 1
Best regards,
Chris Whittington
Karl Juhnke
: I'ld give the following odds:
: Deep Blue Kasparov Odds
: --------- -------- -------
: 0 6 8 to 1
: 0.5 5.5 4 to 1
: 1 5 3 to 1
: 1.5 4.5 2 to 1
: 2 4 2 to 1
: 2.5 3.5 3 to 1
: 3 3 8 to 1
: 3.5 2.5 8 to 1
: 4 2 33 to 1
: 4.5 1.5 33 to 1
: 5 1 50 to 1
: 5.5 0.5 50 to 1
: 6 0 100 to 1
Hmmm, that's a pretty comfy margin you are giving. It looks like I would
have to bet $1.95 to win $1.00. I think I'll check what they're offering
in Vegas first! ;-)
Peace,
Fritz
Chris Whittington
>
> Graham Laight <grahaml> wrote:
> >
> > Right. After 6 months wait, the big game's 11 days away now. No more "If..
> > then.. but maybe.."
> >
> > It's time for sporting types everywhere to nail their colours to the mast!
> >
> > Who's going to win this match?
> >
>
> I'ld give the edge to Kasparov (ELO 2750):
>
> Deep Blue ELO:
> 1000 ELO Base + 200 ELO for evaluation function + 1600 ELO for
> search at c. 5,000,000,000 nodes per second = 2800.
Er, Whoops.
Meant to say 5,000,000,000 nodes per 3 minutes - something like
300,000,000 nodes per second.
>
> But: take away 50 ELO for a likely programming oversight causing
> a game to be lost.
> Take away 100-200 ELo fro Kasparov preparation against computers, and
> Deep Blue is down to 2650 or so. Maybe give Deep Blue 50 ELo back for
> Kasparov not needing to win all the games and settling for draws: 2700.
>
> I'ld give the following odds:
>
> Anyone interested in a virtual bet on Kasparov - Deep Blue ?
>
>
> Deep Blue Kasparov Odds
> --------- -------- -------
> 0 6 8 to 1
> 0.5 5.5 4 to 1
> 1 5 3 to 1
> 1.5 4.5 2 to 1
> 2 4 2 to 1
> 2.5 3.5 3 to 1
> 3 3 8 to 1
> 3.5 2.5 8 to 1
> 4 2 33 to 1
> 4.5 1.5 33 to 1
> 5 1 50 to 1
> 5.5 0.5 50 to 1
> 6 0 100 to 1
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Chris Whittington
>
mschribr
: Who's going to win this match?
Kasparov, of course.
Why is he wasting time playing it?
The machine should first show it is capable
of playing near Kasparov's level.
It should have beaten some strong grandmasters
before it plays the world champ.
Mark Schreiber
Kevin Heider
<chr...@cpsoft.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Deep Blue Kasparov
>--------- --------
>2 4 2 to 1
As a chess player (1600ish) and computer programmer this is MY
prediction.
Computer chess programs still have too many positional flaws.
I do predict that Kasparov loses a match against a computer by 2001.
-- Kevin Heider
Joe Stella
>msch...@ritz.mordor.com (mschribr) writes:
>>Why is he wasting time playing it?
Well, this reminds me of something someone once told me. Do you
know the Walt Disney jingle where they spell M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E
to a little tune? Well, I understand that back in the mid 60's, a
group of hippie-types were protesting outside MIT in Boston, and
they were trying to show their dislike of people who get a degree
just to get ahead in the "rat race". They sang:
M-I-T P-H-D M-O-N-E-Y
to the same jingle. (or so I was told, anyway...)
I guess in Kasparov's case (to answer your question), we can just
leave out the M-I-T P-H-D part and take the rest... :-)
Joe S
Al Cargill
msch...@ritz.mordor.com "mschribr" writes:
> Graham Laight (grahaml) wrote:
> : Who's going to win this match?
>
> Kasparov, of course.
> Why is he wasting time playing it?
> The machine should first show it is capable
> of playing near Kasparov's level.
> It should have beaten some strong grandmasters
> before it plays the world champ.
> Mark Schreiber
Might as well do it now while he still has a chance of winning! :-)
Al
Alastair Scott
- snip snip -
I predict Deep Blue 1˝ Kasparov 4˝ (three draws, three wins).
I predict that the first two games will be drawn (as Kasparov tests
out the machine's positional weaknesses, which I don't believe have
gone away) then K will pull away with three wins out of four.
Now to fall flat on my face!
Alastair
GivenRandy
wins, if only because the Deep Blue has not been tested "in the wild". It
may have the potential to beat Kasparov, which I think it does, but not
yet. I have heard that Deep Blue processes 1000 (?) times faster than
Deep Thought. If this is the case, then I would guess that Deep Blue has
a higher rating by 150-200 points. That would be significant.
Randy Given <Given...@aol.com>
MANOHARARAJAH VALAVAN
don't like Kasparov too much, and would rather see the computer win.
Go Deep Blue!
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
man...@ecf.utoronto.ca | 3rd year Comp Eng., University of Toronto
Valavan Manohararajah |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hyatt
Kevin Heider <k.he...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
-->In <4f7mao$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> given...@aol.com (GivenRandy)
-->writes:
-->
-->>Since I know next-to-nothing about Deep Blue.... I bet that Kasparov
-->>wins, if only because the Deep Blue has not been tested "in the wild".
-->
-->But Deep Thought is the predessor to Deep Blue. Deep Thought use to
-->beat GM's back in 1989... This is 1996...
-->
-->>It may have the potential to beat Kasparov, which I think it does,
-->>but not yet.
-->
-->Deep Blue WILL BEAT Kasporov!!! But I don't think it will win the 1996
-->matchup. Maybe the 2000 matchup...
-->
-->>I have heard that Deep Blue processes 1000 (?) times faster than
-->>Deep Thought.
-->
-->Yes, this is correct. But the saying for a chess program is that it
-->only has to process 5x faster (than it currently does) to look an extra
-->ply deeper. 1000 is equal to 5^3 x 1.6. That is a very AWESOME jump.
-->
-->>If this is the case, then I would guess that Deep Blue has a higher
-->>rating by 150-200 points. That would be significant.
-->>
-->>Randy Given <Given...@aol.com>
-->
-->I imagine that Deep Blue can beat all but the top 5% of GM's...
-->
-->-- Kevin Heider
-->
-->Predicting that Kasporov takes 70% of the points...
From what little info is available, I don't think that they've hit
the 1000x level yet. Sounds more like 25x. DT was around 10M nodes
per sec as I recall, new machine reportedly hits 250M per sec. Of
course, that's two plies if they didn't relax any extension rules.
After considering what little I know about what they can do, here's
my prediction: Kasparov 4 wins, 2 draws, no losses. In two years,
I think it might be a different story.
Personally, I'm pulling for the silicon, but am resigned to the fact
that carbon will probably prevail... :)
Bob
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Lee Sailer
> Graham Laight <grahaml> writes:
> >Who's going to win this match?
> >I say Kasparov, [...]
> So do I; leaving aside the question of whether it is possible to
> build a computer world champ, I belive that DB is being rushed into
> this match before it can possibly be fully ready.
This is too easy.
What do you think the SCORE will be??
lee
Lee Sailer
> Kasparov's advantages:
> 1) DB is likely to be overmaterialistic and so can be expected to fall
> for gambits and other sacrifices that migth best be declined.
> 2) Kasparov can see strategic trends that may take 20 to 30 moves to
> appear on the board.
> 3) Kasparov has a planning facility built-in.
4) Computers play blindfolded.
--
lee
Kevin Heider
writes:
>Since I know next-to-nothing about Deep Blue.... I bet that Kasparov
>wins, if only because the Deep Blue has not been tested "in the wild".
But Deep Thought is the predessor to Deep Blue. Deep Thought use to
beat GM's back in 1989... This is 1996...
>It may have the potential to beat Kasparov, which I think it does,
>but not yet.
Deep Blue WILL BEAT Kasporov!!! But I don't think it will win the 1996
matchup. Maybe the 2000 matchup...
>I have heard that Deep Blue processes 1000 (?) times faster than
>Deep Thought.
Yes, this is correct. But the saying for a chess program is that it
only has to process 5x faster (than it currently does) to look an extra
ply deeper. 1000 is equal to 5^3 x 1.6. That is a very AWESOME jump.
>If this is the case, then I would guess that Deep Blue has a higher
>rating by 150-200 points. That would be significant.
>
>Randy Given <Given...@aol.com>
I imagine that Deep Blue can beat all but the top 5% of GM's...
-- Kevin Heider
Kevin Heider
Hyatt) writes:
>>>I have heard that Deep Blue processes 1000 (?) times faster than
>>>Deep Thought.
>>Yes, this is correct. But the saying for a chess program is that it
>>only has to process 5x faster (than it currently does) to look an
>>extra ply deeper. 1000 is equal to 5^3 x 1.6. That is a very
>>AWESOME jump.
>From what little info is available, I don't think that they've hit
>the 1000x level yet. Sounds more like 25x. DT was around 10M nodes
>per sec as I recall, new machine reportedly hits 250M per sec. Of
>course, that's two plies if they didn't relax any extension rules.
"I BELIEVE" (Disclaimer :)) that if Deep Blue still used the original
engine as Deep Thought, it would look at things roughly 1000x faster
than Deep Thought. IBM claims that Deep Blue has 1000x the processing
power of Deep Thought, not 1000x the nodes/sec. But because Deep Blue
has so much more raw processing power than that awesome beauty Deep
Thought, the engineers designed Deep Blue with a stronger (how much
stronger??) evaluation function. And as you obviously know, a stronger
evaluation function means fewer nodes/sec...
>After considering what little I know about what they can do, here's
>my prediction: Kasparov 4 wins, 2 draws, no losses. In two years,
>I think it might be a different story.
>
>Personally, I'm pulling for the silicon, but am resigned to the fact
>that carbon will probably prevail... :)
>
>Bob
>--
>Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
>hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
>(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
>(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
I predict:
Kasporov 3 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss : 4 points out of 6 : or 66%
No one ever plays several perfect games against an equal level computer
program. Computer programs are very unforgiving about mistakes,
however small they may be.
-- Kevin Heider
Graham Laight
but failing to do so myself (though I was the FIRST in the thread to forecast a
Kasparov win).
I would like to see the computer win, so this is painful for me.
The first game will be a draw, because Gary will be frightened to go for a line
that might result in an embarrasing defeat.
The second game will draw as well, as Gary's team learn the machine's pattern
of play.
By the third game, Gary will know how to win. He'll also win the fourth &
fifth.
By the sixth game, he'll be feeling complacent and he'll be willing to
experiment. This is where DB will score its only win. It will also be a very
exciting game that will go down in the computer history books (or whatever the
21st century equivalent of history books will be).
Final score - 2-4 to Gary.
--
Graham Laight
Graham...@largotim.co.uk
GivenRandy
page, the following was gathered:
Computer Number of Positions per Second
Deep Thought 0.7 M
Deep Though II 7 M
Deep Blue 275 M to 550 M
Randy Given <Given...@aol.com>
James Bricher
Kasparov's play has not been that impressive against computers. He has
only split the two mini-matches against Genius (2 draws and 1 win
apeice), although admittedly at a faster time control. Deep Blue should
surely be much stronger than Genius.
Vincent Diepeveen
I don't see the difference between Kasparov playing Fritz in this match or
Kasparov playing DB.
Ok, some speed difference. Nice for the programmers. Will it help?
in 1956 they said 1966, in 1996 some say 2000. Some even think 1996.
I say: may be NEVER.
Vincent Diepeveen
vdie...@cs.ruu.nl
also busy writing a world champion.
--
+--------------------------------------+
|| email : vdie...@cs.ruu.nl ||
|| Vincent Diepeveen ||
+======================================+
1FA93-Bruce Szablak
2 games, Kasparov will even it in the next two, and finally clinch it
in the last two.
Garth E. Courtois Jr.
>
>Personally, I'm pulling for the silicon, but am resigned to the fact
>that carbon will probably prevail... :)
>
I'm pulling for the silicon too, but perhaps for a different reason. ...
If the computer wins then we can get over any "man vs. machine"
attitudes, especially any which might come from the media, and get
on with other, more meaningful targets; ones in which the man and machine
work as a team, or the machine amplifies the man, or the machine trains
the man to as new higher performance! Man-machine mutual enhancement!
The Silicarbon age!
I am pleased with the IBM page which says, "This match is not about
competition between people and machines. It is a demonstration of
what makes us human beings so different from computers." It downplays
the adversity angle, therefore lending more scientific objectivity
to the outcome.
Kasparov's 4.5 - 1.5 victory will postpone
the next era. A computer victory might be a symbol of the date
where machine officially "bypasses" man, and symbols are important-
but the more important efforts to have man and machine pull together
are already well under way.
Sorry to respond to your message out of context, Bob, :-)
but this here "visionary's soapbox" just looked so
inviting and I was ichin' with somethin' t' say!
--
--ga...@nyx.cs.du.edu Garth E. Courtois Jr. (303)-473-0301
--http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~garth/home.html
--
Andrew Shapira
has had a long time to prepare. The 1989 program might be stronger
than people give it credit for, were it debugged, and that was a long
time ago. In my mind it's clear that eventually a computer is going to
be champion of the world, and the only question is when. I say now.
Deep Blue 4, Kasparov 2: 3 wins, 1 loss, 2 draws for DB. Another
prediction: if Deep Blue loses, it will be because of bugs.
r...@rain.org
> Graham Laight (grahaml) wrote:
> : Who's going to win this match?
I say the match will be 3-3 draw. Deep Blue will win the first game and
will lose the last one.
Who really know what is Deep Blue? Have you see any its game? Or is it really
played by Deep Blue?
Kasparov will lose the first one because he doesn't even know who he is going
to play. He is great so he can hold himself in the following games and then
find some weakness in Deep Blue and win the last one.
Next match will be totally different story.
Ren.
Rune Djurhuus
My bet: Kasparov 6 - Deep Blue 0
Rune
Lee Sailer
K will be outcalculated, and lose the first game.
Then, he will try to play positionally to exploit that well known
computer weakness, but this will lead to 2 draws.
In frustration, he will become more agressive and lose another game.
Final score Deep Blue wins, 2 wins, 4 draws
Just watch 8-)
GivenRandy
Kasparov wins: 3
Deep Blue wins: 1
Draws: 2
Kasparov wins 4-2.
Randy Given <Given...@aol.com>
Marc Levy
If I remember correctly Deep Thought II rating was somewhere around
2550 i.e. DT II was already of GM strength.
Moreover, a while back Pierre Nolot (sp?) posted some chess positions
for which the best move was qualified a "positional sacrifice." At the
time he submitted those positions to the leading commercial programs
and none could find the strongest move. Hsu, however, reported that
Deep Thought (II ?) was able to solve most of these positions (albeit
some requiring on the order of a day of computation.) This seemed to
me the sure sign that above a certain threshold brute force meets
expert human "intuition." If it is indeed the case that Deep Blue is
100 time faster than DT II this also means that DB can solve a broad
class of positional problems over the board (24h / 100 ~ 15min).
Added to DB tactical mastery, this capability would leave only the
area of long term planning as DB's relative weakness.
So:
Deep Blue will not lose a game as white because as white it can, to
some extend, control the "tone" of the game and avoid those openings
that yield positions it can not play very well.
As black DT will lose one game (1. d4).
Marc.
BTW Hats Off to Kasparov for taking on this challenge.
Peter Gillgasch
|>
|> My bet: Kasparov 6 - Deep Blue 0
|>
|> Rune
You have already lost this one ;)
Congrats to FHH and the gang!
-- Peter
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter W. Gillgasch
Klosterweg 28/I-113 email gil...@ira.uka.de
76131 Karlsruhe/Germany Phone ++49/(0)721/6904255
J Battles
after getting in it said No Data. If IBM is using this for advertising
purposes, they blew it.
Gilbert Baron
+GDB:Hello there,
+GDB:
+GDB:If I remember correctly Deep Thought II rating was somewhere around
+GDB:2550 i.e. DT II was already of GM strength.
+GDB:
+GDB:Moreover, a while back Pierre Nolot (sp?) posted some chess positions
+GDB:for which the best move was qualified a "positional sacrifice." At the
+GDB:time he submitted those positions to the leading commercial programs
+GDB:and none could find the strongest move. Hsu, however, reported that
+GDB:Deep Thought (II ?) was able to solve most of these positions (albeit
+GDB:some requiring on the order of a day of computation.) This seemed to
+GDB:me the sure sign that above a certain threshold brute force meets
+GDB:expert human "intuition." If it is indeed the case that Deep Blue is
+GDB:100 time faster than DT II this also means that DB can solve a broad
+GDB:class of positional problems over the board (24h / 100 ~ 15min).
+GDB:Added to DB tactical mastery, this capability would leave only the
+GDB:area of long term planning as DB's relative weakness.
+GDB:
+GDB:So:
+GDB:
+GDB:Deep Blue will not lose a game as white because as white it can, to
+GDB:some extend, control the "tone" of the game and avoid those openings
+GDB:that yield positions it can not play very well.
+GDB:
+GDB:As black DT will lose one game (1. d4).
+GDB:
+GDB:Marc.
+GDB:
+GDB:BTW Hats Off to Kasparov for taking on this challenge.
Many may have to revise their thinking. Deep blue won the first game.
Kasparov MAY be in for a rough time.
_
Gil Baron W0MN gba...@sparc.isl.net Web http://www.isl.net/~gbaron
"Bailar es vivir" pgp2.6 key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
"Cuatro caminos hay en mi vida. Cual de los cuatro sera el mejor"
[Posted with Agent .99d. For info, email agent...@forteinc.com.]
Gilbert Baron
+GDB:In article <4f9ge2$k...@reader2.ix.netcom.com>,
+GDB:Kevin Heider <k.he...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
+GDB:-->In <4f7mao$b...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> given...@aol.com (GivenRandy)
+GDB:-->writes:
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->>Since I know next-to-nothing about Deep Blue.... I bet that Kasparov
+GDB:-->>wins, if only because the Deep Blue has not been tested "in the wild".
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->But Deep Thought is the predessor to Deep Blue. Deep Thought use to
+GDB:-->beat GM's back in 1989... This is 1996...
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->>It may have the potential to beat Kasparov, which I think it does,
+GDB:-->>but not yet.
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->Deep Blue WILL BEAT Kasporov!!! But I don't think it will win the 1996
+GDB:-->matchup. Maybe the 2000 matchup...
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->>I have heard that Deep Blue processes 1000 (?) times faster than
+GDB:-->>Deep Thought.
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->Yes, this is correct. But the saying for a chess program is that it
+GDB:-->only has to process 5x faster (than it currently does) to look an extra
+GDB:-->ply deeper. 1000 is equal to 5^3 x 1.6. That is a very AWESOME jump.
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->>If this is the case, then I would guess that Deep Blue has a higher
+GDB:-->>rating by 150-200 points. That would be significant.
+GDB:-->>
+GDB:-->>Randy Given <Given...@aol.com>
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->I imagine that Deep Blue can beat all but the top 5% of GM's...
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->-- Kevin Heider
+GDB:-->
+GDB:-->Predicting that Kasporov takes 70% of the points...
+GDB:
+GDB:
+GDB:From what little info is available, I don't think that they've hit
+GDB:the 1000x level yet. Sounds more like 25x. DT was around 10M nodes
+GDB:per sec as I recall, new machine reportedly hits 250M per sec. Of
+GDB:course, that's two plies if they didn't relax any extension rules.
+GDB:
+GDB:After considering what little I know about what they can do, here's
+GDB:my prediction: Kasparov 4 wins, 2 draws, no losses. In two years,
+GDB:I think it might be a different story.
+GDB:
+GDB:Personally, I'm pulling for the silicon, but am resigned to the fact
+GDB:that carbon will probably prevail... :)
+GDB:
+GDB:Bob
+GDB:--
+GDB:Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
+GDB:hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
+GDB:(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
+GDB:(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Deep blue resigned game two so score is 1-1.
Game Score:
1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 e6 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. o-o Nf6 6. c4 dxc4 7. Ne5
Bd7 8. Na3 cxd4 9. Naxc4 Bc5 10.
Qb3 O-O 11. Qxb7 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Rb8 13. Qf3 Bd6 14. Nc6 Bxc6 15. Qxc6
e5 16. Rb1 Rb6 17. Qa4
Qb8 18. Bg5 Be7 19. b4 Bxb4 20. Bxf6 gxf6 21. Qd7 Qc8 22. Qxa7 Rb8 23.
Qa4 Bc3 24. Rxb8 Qxb8 25.
Be4 Qc7 26. Qa6 Kg7 27. Qd3 Rb8 28. Bxh7 Rb2 29. Be4 Rxa2 30. h4 Qc8
31. Qf3 Ra1 32. Rxa1 Bxa1
33. Qh5 Qh8 34. Qg4 Kf8 35. Qc8 Kg7 36. Qg4 Kf8 37. Bd5 Ke7 38. Bc6
Kf8 39. Bd5 Ke7 40. Qf3 Bc3
41. Bc4 Qc8 42. Qd5 Qe6 43. Qb5 Qd7 44. Qc5 Qd6 45. Qa7 Qd7 46. Qa8
Qc7 47. Qa3 Qd6 48. Qa2 f5
49. Bxf7 e4 50. Bh5 Qf6 51. Qa3 Kd7 52. Qa7 Kd8 53. Qb8 Kd7 54. Be8
Ke7 55. Bb5 Bd2 56. Qc7 Kf8
57. Bc4 Bc3 58. Kg2 Be1 59. Kf1 Bc3 60. f4 ef3/ep 61. exf3 Bd2 62. f4
Ke8 63. Qc8 Ke7 64. Qc5 Kd8
65. Bd3 Be3 66. Qxf5 Qc6 67. Qf8 Kc7 68. Qe7 Kc8 69. Bf5 Kb8 70. Qd8
Kb7 71. Qd7 Qxd7 72. Bxd7
Kc7 73. Bb5 Kd6
Lee Sailer
> K will be outcalculated, and lose the first game.
Got that one right...
> Then, he will try to play positionally to exploit that well known
> computer weakness, but this will lead to 2 draws.
Well, 73 moves is almost the same as a draw 8-) 8-) We'll see how game
three goes. Can K stall forever as Black?
> In frustration, he will become more agressive and lose another game.
Or, if he plays too many of these long games, he'll get real tired...
> Final score Deep Blue wins, 2 wins, 4 draws
new guess. 3-3
> Just watch 8-)
--
lee
Koh Sian Chian
Koh Sian Chian
isc4...@iscs.nus.sg