Posted By: Koles (nikam nejdu) on 'CZchess' Title: a jeste maly esejicek od Ananda Date: Tue May 13 18:00:21 1997 More questions than answers by Vishwanathan Anand I eagerly waited to see the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue rematch. Deep Blue was stronger. Deeper, to be precise. From my own experience, practical play exposes all sorts of weaknesses and strengths in my play that are hidden during preparation. Equally, the team behind Deep Blue must have benefited immensely from studying the six games played against Kasparov in 1996. And it would be faster. I can't tell the difference between 100 zillion positions and 497 zillion positions, but if it helped Deep Blue play stronger, so be it. I was looking forward to Deep Blue boldly going where no man had gone before. Kasparov himself must have studied the games played last year. However, humans can't change their style drastically like computers. On top of that, all his games were accessible to the Deep Blue team, while he was in the dark about Deep Blue. He had two options: to play like Kasparov or to play like "Mr. Anti Deep Blue." The former runs the risk of playing to the strengths of the machines, the latter that the human ends up as disoriented as the machine. Humans, too, play weaker in unfamiliar situations and though they may find their way around better, machines can compensate for that with brute force. Kasparov chose the latter. Unfortunately, as a result, we were never able to seethe fabulous calculating abilities of Deep Blue. Not once did we see a spectacular example of brute force producing a solution that differed significantly from that suggested by intuition. A lot has been made of Deep Blue's play in the second game, but in fact only one or two moments can be singled out - 26.f4 and 37.Bxe4. The rest of the game is not that difficult, even for a computer. There is also the mystery at the end of the game. Did Deep Blue not see 45...Qe3? Why on Earth did it play 44.Kf1? Surely it could calculate 3 moves further! His strategy might even have worked if he hadn't conceded so much territory to Deep Blue. By trying so hard to avoid any position where Deep Blue might be able to calculate its way through, he effectively self-destructed. Three tough draws followed where he was always better, but unable to overcome Deep Blue's stubborn defense. By the 6th game, he was a pale shadow of himself. Suffice it to say, that the trap he fell into in the 6th game is a well known one. It forms part of his own opening strategy as White!! The chess may have been disappointing, but the media interest has been exceptional and that is a wonderful promotion for the game of chess Deep Blue has only played twelve games in two years against one single opponent. As such, it is impossible to tell how strong it is or what it is capable of. IBM can hardly risk the reputation of its "blue-eyed" baby against some PC or mere mortal. So the rest of us (6,000,000,000 minus Kasparov) are left with more questions than answers.
Search the boards