21 ( +1 | -1 ) Gary gets crunched......in game 3. Played the same pawn offer(g4) he tried in Game 1.This time,the critter accepted it,and managed to beat off Gary's attack.Gary resigned,2 pawns down,after 36 moves.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) YepIt's a shame (or a good thing!) that computers don't have a personality that can influence their rationale. Gary's aggression / desire to win / greed got the better of him when a draw was in the bag (according to analysis way beyond my own).
I think Gary's the better player but am not convinced that will be proven in this momentous and important match.
Still fingers crossed for 'man' in the last 3 games... }: )
41 ( +1 | -1 ) Paolo's time controls are correct; they're using standard classical controls.
I hope that game 3 doesn't dull Kasparov's fighting spirit; he's at his best when he's pressing the attack, not playing weird, passive, and safe like he did back in 1997. I'm still holding out hope that Kasparov will pull out a Najdorf novelty at some point during the match.
24 ( +1 | -1 ) I just hope......that this isn't going to be another tank job,like Gary-Deeper Blue,and Kramnik-Deep Fritz.I'm still convinced both of those"contests" were dives by the human player,and this one smells the same way.
150 ( +1 | -1 ) Perhapswe've reached the 'equinox' where computers are our equal & even surpassing us when emotion doesn't come into play. Majority opinion is that Kasparov didn't play at his best in the Deep Blue re-match & that he is currently superior to Kramnik so in effect, this is the ultimate Man vs. Machine challenge (your own PC that you're browsing with probably being not too far behind Deep Blue on today's terms (RISK & dedicated instruction sets aside)). If we were to represent Earth against an alien chess playing nation, we'd probably put Kasparov forward as our representative.
I'd be interested in the programming behind Deep Junior. They say it's human-like in it's unexpected evaluations cs. other computer programs - I wonder if it's just a database of past GM games plus a logic algorithm or if it actually contains AI routines whereby it's understanding of chess theory evolves with it's own experiences. I assume not since it's programmers 'tweaked' it's parms. since Game 1 so, if this is equilbrium between man & man's creation, with a tiny bit more effort, we'll create something that really is ELO 3000 & improves with every game. }8 0 !
As an aside, has anyone read 'Computer One' by Warwick Collins? Internet & distributed processing ring any bells?
I think it's great on one hand that we can learn new lines from computer analysis, yet it's depressing that we are being surpassed by our own creation in this beautiful game. It's not very Star Trek.
Gwan Garry. Hooves crossed... }: )
21 ( +1 | -1 ) Man vs MachineHere is a website to see the score