Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

Forum rules

(1) Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
(2) Off topic posts are limited to active members who have actually posted on-topic in one of the chess-oriented sections in the past. Any user whose first post does not relate to chess will be banned permanently. Posts in the Introduction section do not count.
(3) Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Be tolerant at any time. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated.
(4) Discussions on political and religious topics are not allowed. Posts containing elements thereof will be redacted or deleted and a temporary or permanent ban may be placed upon the user.
Discussions on politics in chess organisations and the way politics affect chess are allowed.
(4a) Drug use references are not allowed and discussions on drugs are not allowed.
(5) Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members have something to report they are welcome to bring it to the attention of moderator either by a PM or in this thread: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html. Don't hesitate to report a PM if you believe it violates the forum rules, even if someone else has already reported a (similar) PM by the same user; having more reports makes it easier for the moderators to take action.
(7) These rules apply to forum posts as well as private messages (PMs).
(8) Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons (smilies), large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
(9) Members should use an appropriate, descriptive title when posting a new topic. Examples of bad titles include; "Help me!", "I'm stuck!", "I've got an error!", etc. Examples of good titles include; "New Game: Perseus - SomeOtherPlayer", "Two Knights Defense: Fritz Variation and sidelines", etc.
(10) Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
(11) Continuously linking your own website to promote it is not allowed. You may use your signature (which will come up beneath all your posts) for this purpose.
(12) Members should refrain from posting without adding to the discussion. Posting just to increase postcount is not allowed.
(13) Combine your comments into one post rather than making many consecutive posts to a thread within a short period of time. This can be done by clicking the 'edit' button next to your post.
If your last post, which is the last in the thread, is very old you may use the following trick to make sure it's bumped up to the new posts. Click on the 'edit' button of your last post. Copy the content of the post. Click delete and delete your last post. Paste the content of the now-deleted post in a new post, add what you will and click 'submit reply'.
(13a) You are not allowed to make consecutive posts. If you post more than once without a reply from another user, all posts after the first will be deleted.
(13b) Exceptions may be made for specific types of threads.
(14) Warez are intellectual property (software/music/movies/tv-series/tv-shows/etc) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that breaks its copyright and/or license. You are not allowed to give/link to/ask for/advocate/provide information for obtaining and the use of warez.
Bittorrent links are not allowed.
(14a) The following international treaties apply:
-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (Berne, 1886)
-Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (Geneva, 1952)
-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Marrakesh, 1994)
-World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty) (Geneva, 1996)
(15) Books published before 1920 are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez. Books published after 1920 with permission from the author are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez provided it can within reason be established that permission has been given. All other books are considered copyrighted and e-books thereof are considered warez.
(16) Usernames that contain obscene or vulgar language or denigrate individuals and/or organisations are not allowed.
(17) Users may only delete their own posts on the grounds that they constitute a severe breach of these rules. Even when this is the case, the editing of the post to effect repairs must at all times be considered first.
The emptying of posts (substituting the content by non-content) is explicitely considered a breach of this rule.
Deletion of whole batches of posts harms thread continuity and the forum as a whole and the Moderation team will take action; in the most extreme case an account may be permanently banned to preserve the posted.
(18) Administrators (Admins) and Moderators (Mods) reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. is up to them and not to forum members.
(19) Aforementioned Admins and Mods reserve the right to edit this list of rules at anytime.
See more
See less

hypothetically was there anyone better than Kasparov that could face Deep blue ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • hypothetically was there anyone better than Kasparov that could face Deep blue ?

    Anyone ? Karpov at the time ? or Anand ? Or Karpov in his prime etc ?

  • #2
    I'd have to say Karpov since his style played into human strengths whereas Kasparov was a calculation god. Yet even he couldn't see as far and wide as a computer. Kasparov is no dummy strategically either so he should have gone that route (he did successfully in some games, and one of his losses was due to a faulty anti-computer strategy).

    Comment


    • #3
      Kramnik at his peak. I guess that'd be about 6-8 years ago.

      Carlsen.

      Karpov in his prime.

      But realistically? I'll go with mr Boa Constrictor chess himself. Tigran Petrosian.
      Have you read the Forum rules?

      Queeg: Pawn to King Four. Holly: Horsie to King Bish Three.
      Rimmer: It's called a "knight," actually, Holly...
      Queeg: Knight to King Bishop three. Holly: Queen to Rook Eight. Checkmate.
      Queeg: That's an illegal move. Holly: Oh, sorry. Queens don't move like that. I was thinking of poker.
      Holly: Cleudo? You could be Colonel Mustard.
      Cat: If it's any help, I've been studying his tactics and there's a pattern emerging: Every time you make a move, he makes one too. *Winks to Holly*
      Holly: *Winks back* Thanks, Cat.
      --Red Dwarf

      Comment


      • #4
        I was doubting about Karpov , since he sometimes played poorly vs computers even in the 80s (relativly poor) I would be curious how Petrosian/ Capa/ karpov would handle it. And if i wanted to laugh, Mikhhail Tal from 61

        Comment


        • #5
          I would probably bet on Capablanca, clear strategic thinking, perfect endgames.
          Or Carlsen, as he keeps playing well even after 6 hours, which is what most human GMs failed to do in man VS computer matches.
          Developer of Chess Trainer, a cool app for the Iphone

          My blog
          My twitter
          Chess Trainer on facebook

          Comment


          • #6
            Capablanca is without question one of the greatest endgame (or overall) players of all time, but wouldn't have updated enough knowledge to face Deep Blue. In Endgame Strategy Capablanca makes many mistakes that were pointed out by other GMs. Deep Blue would also use its superior opening and calculation knowledge to its advantage. Capablanca with updated knowledge and technique would be Carlson, who certainly would defeat Deep Blue. Let us apply some basic logic to the situation:

            1.Kasparov despite playing against the computer at its own game (i.e., calculation and opening knowledge. De Firmian, author of MCO, helped with Deep Blue's opening book) only lost by one game.

            2.Kasparov should have won but resigned a drawn position in one game.

            3.In one game a faulty anti-computer strategy was tried.

            Carlson however,

            1.Higher ELO than Kasparov had at his peak.

            2.Playing style far less computer friendly.

            It's no question Carlson would win given how close Kasparov was with the machine.
            Last edited by JustMe; 12-12-2013, 12:23 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              It's Carlsen, not Carlson. I doubt if Carlsen will win. His usual strategy: make the position as dry as possible, then keep playing on and on until your opponent makes mistakes works well against humans but would have no effect on computers. Probably most games, if not all, would end in a draw.

              Comment


              • #8
                He uses schematic thinking even in the middlegame. It appears that cheap waiting moves until a mistake are his strategy but he gradually improves his position pursuing small advantages that are consistent with his plan. The wait until a mistake tactic is ineffective above class E.

                Carlsen gets a red underline whereas Carlson doesn't though I thought it was Carlsen at first... and is.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, at least according to Anand in an interview he said he had trouble with his strategy in the World Championship match. Top class players aren't used to play drawn endgames out until the end so Carlsen makes use of this. Maybe this will change since the top masters challengers will have to adapt to his style.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sammy39337 View Post
                    Well, at least according to Anand in an interview he said he had trouble with his strategy in the World Championship match. Top class players aren't used to play drawn endgames out until the end so Carlsen makes use of this. Maybe this will change since the top masters challengers will have to adapt to his style.
                    Maybe Anand needs to refresh Basic Chess Endings or The Survival Guide to Rook Endings so he doesn't lose drawn positions?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JustMe View Post
                      Maybe Anand needs to refresh Basic Chess Endings or The Survival Guide to Rook Endings so he doesn't lose drawn positions?


                      haha

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well wiseguy, you know exactly what it takes to compete at the top level huh? Maybe Anand used this as an excuse but I thought his explanation was plausible.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I met an IM and he told me that it's all about preparation at master level and above. This is of course assuming the basics of tactics, positional elements, and strategy are completely mastered.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How do you explain Anand's blunders then?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Rashid Nezhmetdinov
                              Last edited by stachu71; 12-12-2013, 05:56 PM.
                              Skype chess coaching? Send a message!
                              Ever heard of The Hook and Ladder trick? Please refer to the famous game by Andriej Hook and James Ladder.
                              Play as if you didn't understand chess. People always fear what they don't understand.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X