Match Kasparov vs Deep Blue, 1997 year: pl.lichess.org/study/bjwEnOR8
@lurarose I'd like to remind you that since you are the one making the claim, the burden of proving IBM cheated is on you, the burden of decisively proving IBM didn't is not on me.
1) a lot more than just the chosen moves were shown in the logs. Or are they faked, as well? A convenient explanation.
2) You didn't answer my retort at all. They could have had the Deep Blue hardware hanging in a museum, and no one would be able to prove that it didn't beat Kasparov by examining the circuitry visually every day. So, why dismantle it to cover up anything?
3) Ergo, they lied because they didn't release a series of papers? Huh?
4) Kasparov was not obligated to accept the rematch just as much as IBM wasn't. Since Deep Blue was not THAT much stronger than Kasparov, it's understandable even from a PR standpoint why IBM didn't want a rematch where Kasparov edged out a win.
5) You didn't answer my question.
6) You didn't answer my question. Push a button and beat Kasparov by doing something the computer can't seem to figure out to help it along? Give me a break.
7) You're telling me that with all the work that went into Deep Blue, they needed a tournament-level human to prune obviously bad lines? I know modern engines are a step above, and still struggle on complex puzzles where the solution is really weird, but Kasparov wasn't really creating the type of positions where computers struggle like that. I don't understand why you think it's impossible that DB wasn't capable of pruning its own bad lines.
1) a lot more than just the chosen moves were shown in the logs. Or are they faked, as well? A convenient explanation.
2) You didn't answer my retort at all. They could have had the Deep Blue hardware hanging in a museum, and no one would be able to prove that it didn't beat Kasparov by examining the circuitry visually every day. So, why dismantle it to cover up anything?
3) Ergo, they lied because they didn't release a series of papers? Huh?
4) Kasparov was not obligated to accept the rematch just as much as IBM wasn't. Since Deep Blue was not THAT much stronger than Kasparov, it's understandable even from a PR standpoint why IBM didn't want a rematch where Kasparov edged out a win.
5) You didn't answer my question.
6) You didn't answer my question. Push a button and beat Kasparov by doing something the computer can't seem to figure out to help it along? Give me a break.
7) You're telling me that with all the work that went into Deep Blue, they needed a tournament-level human to prune obviously bad lines? I know modern engines are a step above, and still struggle on complex puzzles where the solution is really weird, but Kasparov wasn't really creating the type of positions where computers struggle like that. I don't understand why you think it's impossible that DB wasn't capable of pruning its own bad lines.
I'm going to watch this, thank you for the link.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.