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.