Chess - Kasparov vs Deep Blue

Why did Kasparov think it made a "human" move ?

>>53211998
Deep Blue acted on what moves were most cost effective and how it could win by points. This had been true all its games.

As I recall, Kasparov frustrated by some differences to the normal strategy it used, tried to test it out and set up a bait trap for it. Like he put his queen or something in an easy position to be taken, but it was a trap. Normally Deep Blue should have just seen the queen and looked at only the point value and not seen moves ahead the trap Kasparov set. Instead though, unlike it was supposed to, it didn't fall for the trap and sought out much less valuable pieces.

>>53210325

Do you guys think IBM cheated? or is it just Kasparov's ego?

Yes.

Kasparov can suck a big dick.

Do you guys think dongcopter cheated?

>>53210325
>Do you guys think IBM cheated?

of course not. Deep Blue did exactly what it was designed to do. Kasparov is just salty because he thought human brains were better at computing than computers. He was wrong.

>>53210325
How can a computer cheat at chess? It's not like there's nobody to see if it moved a piece in an illegal manner.

>>53212970
I think the implication is that a human saw the trap and told Deep Blue, or even that Blue was always a human player playing remotely.

Honestly the trap was probably not as good as Kasparov thought it was.

>>53213048
kasparov setting a trap is bullshit. He played to win, he wasn't a computer, he lost, he invented a reason for said loss that wasn't "A program beat me at chess".

There's no way he would fool around in such a high profile game, its an excuse, because his ego won't let him accept that a program written to play the best chess possible could beat him.

>>53210325
He won one game by doing a move that simply had reprecussions too far down the line for the machine to brute-force through it.

Suffice to say, he's basically complaining the machine is not as retardedly simple as he believed.
He doesn't play to just nab the most valuable piece all the time, why on Earth would a machine programmed to win do so, either?

File: Robot's Room.png (527KB, 525x483px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 525x483px

>>53210325
>meatfag
>learns that it's inferior
>impotently squirts air through its hole

Why am I not surprised?

So he would rather admit to losing to a human being rather than admitting he lost to then-state-of-the-art AI? That's dumb.

Also, Kasparov has been trying to stir shit up for at least a good decade since he knows he isn't relevant anymore.

OP here, actually, IBM scientists admitted they fixed a bug on the code, in game. Kasparov said that a human decided on that particular move. He was confused after that and lost his temper ending up losing to the machine.
He could draw in both cases, but he just did shit the rest of the game.

> what about the move?
Deep blue could play a move that would make it gain a significant positioning lead, and kasparov could draw out of it. Instead the machine played a block move, blocking one of his pawns.

What drives me nuts is that kasparov asked to get the logs but IBM refused, said that the scientists are demanteled in different projects and no one has the logs.