Gary Kasparov

[vijay]

probably the greatest player ever to've played Chess.How many of you admire/appreciate him?

 

[Raoul]

Not me. The bitter twat starts crying when the computer beats him.

 

[vijay]

Some observers agree that IBM has not created the perfect chess-playing machine. Despite the match results and even specific moves in game 2 which Kasparov admitted shook him so badly that psychologically he was demoralized for the remainder of the match, Deep Blue also made some moves that most grandmasters agreed were very bad. Howling errors. It may be possible for IBM to create a computer which can always play a perfect game, but this version of Deep Blue isn't it. Nevertheless, it is a tribute to the programming and the incredible two hundred million moves per second parallel microprocessors that the machine could make weak moves against a player of Kasparov's strength and still win or draw games. If it had made more of these unorthodox moves it might not have been able not calculate a good enough way to proceed, but as it stood, it was still able to find viable and even strong continuations after these errors.The machine was lucky as did'nt step in to Kasparov's preparations

 

[Raoul]

Kinell Vijay. This is chess. One line is sufficient.

 

[DanishDevil]

I fell asleep midway in that post

 

[vijay]

But am good in this sport

 

[Raoul]

Vijay, where in India are you ?

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>But am good in this sport </strong><hr></blockquote>

You play chess online?

 

[Vinay]

I think Bobby Fisher is considered a 'deadlier' player in his time by many an expert...

But, yes, Kasparov has done quite enough in Chess to deserve the status of legend.

 

[kennyj]

Vijay,
Hasn't every move that could be made in chess been made at one time or another? I would think that the computer would draw on its vast memory for past moves from successful matches rather than be programmed for bold and inventive moves. In the beginning, there could be more unorthodox moves because there are more possibilities with openings. When it gets to the endgame, the computer would have much more of an advantage because it would always make the correct move. Does this make sense?

 

[kennyj]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>I think Bobby Fisher is considered a 'deadlier' player in his time by many an expert...

But, yes, Kasparov has done quite enough in Chess to deserve the status of legend.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Fischer was only champion for about 4 years. Hasparov and Karpov have had much longer reigns. Fischer is a very strange individual.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by kennyj:
<strong>Vinay,
Hasn't every move that could be made in chess been made at one time or another? I would think that the computer would draw on its vast memory for past moves from successful matches rather than be programmed for bold and inventive moves. In the beginning, there could be more unorthodox moves because there are more possibilities with openings. When it gets to the endgame, the computer would have much more of an advantage because it would always make the correct move. Does this make sense?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, it would Kenny... Except that it was Vijay who addressed the issue, not me, Vinay...

I know it is confusing... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />

 

[kennyj]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

Yes, it would Kenny... Except that it was Vijay who addressed the issue not me, Vinay...

I know it is confusing... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> I just realized it before your post and edited that post, but you got me first.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by kennyj:
<strong>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> I just realized it before your post and edited that post, but you got me first.</strong><hr></blockquote>

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>Vijay, where in India are you ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bangalore.India has produced some of the best chess players like Anand.

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

You play chess online?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When I was following this game i used to train myself by playing against Humans and Books not with machines..now a days am satisfied in playing with Fritz .Kasparov is 20 times stronger than Fischer.There are more than 50 GM's now who can beat Fischer.From the past only Alekhine Botvinik and Karpov are good enough to be compared with Kasparov.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>
Kasparov is 20 times stronger than Fischer.There are more than 50 GM's now who can beat Fischer.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am so amazed as to how you come with such quantitative comparisons. How can you do that?

Kasparov never played Fischer. And many a chess expert do agree that Fischer was quite a genius at chess! It's like you are trying to say that Henry is twenty times better than Pele??!! How do you base yourself in saying that?

Anyway, I do agree that Kasparov might perhaps beat Fischer in a hypothetical match up. He has a more stable mind. And has been exposed to more chess than Fischer. But, I still think, from what I have heard, that Fischer was a mighty genius at chess!

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

I am so amazed as to how you come with such quantitative comparisons. How can you do that?

Kasparov never played Fischer. And many a chess expert do agree that Fischer was quite a genius at chess! It's like you are trying to say that Henry is twenty times better than Pele??!! How do you base yourself in saying that?

Anyway, I do agree that Kasparov might perhaps beat Fischer in a hypothetical match up. He has a more stable mind. And has been exposed to more chess than Fischer. But, I still think, from what I have heard, that Fischer was a mighty genius at chess!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Its nothing to do with quantitative analysis.This is game is not like football so we can watch the videos and compare Basten with Pele or Zidane with Maradona.Chess has come a long way in the past 20 years but whatever the technology has done to the game its still played on the 64 squares.The techiques and style of play adapted by Fischer have become obselete (as it had so many holes which were never exploited by his opponents) and if an young player tries to adapt similar tactics he will end up losing.Karpov(he is still beating and holding top players),Alekhine or Botvinik are better players as they had more quality and their variations are still being used now.Fact today is if you try to play a novelty which was played 5 yrs ago you will lose.Raymond Keene the author of Batsford Chess Openings said there are 50 GM's now who can beat Fischer way back in 1995.Now the number must be more than 50.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>
Bangalore.India has produced some of the best chess players like Anand.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've been to Bangalore. Great city. I hear its turned into a bit of a tech centre these days.

Great food too. Miss the Thali meals.

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by kennyj:
<strong>Vijay,
Hasn't every move that could be made in chess been made at one time or another? I would think that the computer would draw on its vast memory for past moves from successful matches rather than be programmed for bold and inventive moves. In the beginning, there could be more unorthodox moves because there are more possibilities with openings. When it gets to the endgame, the computer would have much more of an advantage because it would always make the correct move. Does this make sense?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes! every move made in chess are often repeated and some times machines provide new novelty for us.But its not easy for the computer to draw data from its vast memory.

Machines are unintelligent because they are so narrow. It can win a chess game, but it can't recognize, much less pick up, a chess piece. Since the essence of intelligence would seem to be breadth, or the ability to react creatively to a wide variety of situations, it's hard to credit machines with much intelligence.

However many experts are insisting that Deep Blue shows no intelligence whatsoever, because it doesn't actually understand a chess position, but only searches through millions of possible move sequences blindly.The fallacy in this argument is the assumption that intelligent behavior can only be the result of intelligent cogitation.

These Machines will be able to examine 200 million(maximum) as many strategic positions per second But, that's not the big point. The big one is that how much of the chess knowledge is actually refined.Incidentally, Garry Kasparov or Anand can examine approximately three positions per second.But there are certain variations which the programmers can never use against GM's.If they try to play Sicilian against Kasparov or Marshall attack against Anand they would definitely lose as these variations are exposed by these players.

The increase in computing power will also allow the Machines to adapt to new strategies as the game progresses particulary in the middle game.
Only in the middle game these machines can outwit GM's not in the opening theory or end games.So these machines are supposed to find the best possible moves within its search parameters.This is where the IBM people cheated Kasparov.In the first match if you can remember that Kasparov eventually Defeated Deep Blue by switching strategies mid-game.

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

I've been to Bangalore. Great city. I hear its turned into a bit of a tech centre these days.

Great food too. Miss the Thali meals. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah..Software capital of India..

 

[United78]

Originally poste dby Kennj:
Fischer was only champion for about 4 years. Hasparov and Karpov have had much longer reigns. Fischer is a very strange individual. <hr></blockquote>

Aren't there stories taht Fischer still plays chess in the Parks in NYC sometimes? or is that another urban myth?

 

[vijay]

Sometimes he plays against JuditPolgar

 

[mikhail]

This is one wierd thread.

To answer vijay_vr's original question, I reckon that Kasparov is better than Fischer, and is in fact the greatest player of the century. On the other hand, Kasparov himself claims the reverse. Who am I to argue?

Originally posted by kennyj:
Vijay,
Hasn't every move that could be made in chess been made at one time or another? I would think that the computer would draw on its vast memory for past moves from successful matches rather than be programmed for bold and inventive moves. In the beginning, there could be more unorthodox moves because there are more possibilities with openings. When it gets to the endgame, the computer would have much more of an advantage because it would always make the correct move. Does this make sense? <hr></blockquote>

Firstly, there are so many possible moves in chess that, even if we had such a database, a computer could not possibly search all of them prior to something annoying happening like a power cut, or the sun exploding.

Secondly, while the main paths in the opening are well-mapped, there is always room for novelties - moves which haven't been played before. Kasparov himself is estimated to have about 3,000 novelties (moves which have never before been played) stored up in his head at any time in his own narrow opening repetoire. He employs a staff to search for new ones continuously.

Finally, yes, a computer can play an endgame perfectly, but only of there are 5 pieces or less. Beyond this, the database is too big for it to be solved. This alone gives a hint to the complexity of the game when there are 32 peices at the beginning, with each adding complexity exponentially. In fact, players like Kramnik (current champion, and an endgame specialist) can outplay computers in the endgame because they understand the position, while the computer, if it cannot see a tactical possibility, is lost.