So why not cheat if necessary? Like a company would be above that (Enron, etc.) or anything for that matter to increase profit. The whole point was not to beat Kasparov or improve artificial intelligence (or they would've continued the work on Deep Blue, published the groundbreaking work, patented programming code, etc), but only to improve stock value and reposition themselves on the market. And, the final nail: Why shouldn't IBM cheat? To IBM, it's nothing but a marketing stunt, nothing else. Also when they won (no rematch, no further research, dismantling of Deep Blue) doesn't look like honest behavior (first truly artificial intelligence? Who would NOT follow through with research?), but like a cheater who won and now has to skip town before he's discovered. Also IBM,s attitude, while could be attributed to psyching out Kasparov (fueling his paranoia), looked totally like a cheater's conduct. But that's a human strategy, not a machine's (the computer only knows the game in front of it, doesn't know there are six games total, so it would NEVER sacrifice one to try to surprise Kasparov in the next one). It will cover a little bit of the history of computer chess, focusing on: Turk, El Ajedrecista, Shannon and Turing’s approaches to build chess programs, MANIAC, Bersnstein's Chess program.
DEEP BLUE CHESS PLAY SERIES
The series focuses on machines that played chess, checkers, and backgammon. Maybe losing the first game was intended to lower Kasparov's defenses so he would try a play like that, and there Deep Blue would surprise him, psyche him out and steamroll. Machines That Play (Chess Before Deep Blue) has been broken into 7 parts. Arguments for it: Kasparov won fist game easy, but lost second when Deep Blue didn't take a bait a compute would've taken. Having won the six-game rematch 32, it became the first computer system to. no one can blame him), since chess is also psychologic warfare, IBM surely did it's best to psyche out Kasparov and play his paranoid assumptions. The computer was heavily upgraded and played once more against Kasparov in 1997. And he's a paranoid (coming from the U.R.S.S. Anything is possible Arguments against it: Kasparov could've taken for granted Deep Blue's playing antics as the one of a normal computer, and since IBM had a grandmaster chess player advising the programmers, it's not so wild to conceive that they managed to program Deep Blue to be able to spot traps like the one Kasparov set up that wouldv'e nailed any other computer. Like the documentary say, Kasparov would be the worst poker player in the world. And when he was losing and crumbling, you could see it too. Whenever he felt good and winning, you could see it. This is partly due to the increase in processing power that enables calculations to be made to even greater depths in a given time. Today, more than 20 years since Deep Blue defeated Kasparov, chess engines have even become a lot stronger and increase in playing strength each year. Kasparov could surely be a fine actor, since the guy is very expressive and charismatic. Our list of the Top 6 Best Chess Engines of the World in 2021. I saw the documentary, and saw the actual games in 1997.
0 kommentar(er)
