This short movie. It is an interesting, clip really. The look on Kasparov's face is just freaking priceless. So if you have a spare 6 minutes and 6 seconds, take a look.
.. Been a while since I've seen Kasparov.. Or played chess for that matter.. hehe.. This guy is a genious. Reading through some of his games just makes you appreciate his game play.
When I was in high school, I had a rating just over 2000 - which wasn't too bad. But, whenever I used to go through games by this guy, it just makes you wonder "how the heck did he think of that?!"
.. Been a while since I've seen Kasparov.. Or played chess for that matter.. hehe.. This guy is a genious. Reading through some of his games just makes you appreciate his game play.
When I was in high school, I had a rating just over 2000 - which wasn't too bad. But, whenever I used to go through games by this guy, it just makes you wonder "how the heck did he think of that?!"
Wow! Blew my score out of the water....mine is 1789.....not bragging or anything I am in highschool...this guy in my chess club has something like 1978 which is quite good.
Wow! Blew my score out of the water....mine is 1789.....not bragging or anything I am in highschool...this guy in my chess club has something like 1978 which is quite good.
Nope.. No one has ever reached that high. The highest rating "ever" reached by anyone past or present is 2851 (give or take a few points) - by Gary Kasparov.
An [International Master] typically has a rating 2200 or above. A [Grand master] typically has a rating 2400 and above. And "elite" [Grand Master] - guys like Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand - have ratings over 2700. There's usually only like 1-2 people over 2800 at a given time.
Actually when I first heard about the challenge, and that Kasparov had won a match, I was shocked! I just couldn't believe a human being could beat a supercomputer that could plan millions of moves ahead. I suppose it's my Asimovian love for machines. After thinking it through, I could only see two possibilities:
1) Even if a computer can plan millions of moves ahead, it still needs to pick the correct one. So the first possibility is that the algorithm in charge of selecting a move isn't very good (yet). How do we even define a good move?
2) The second possibility is that the computing power of Deep Blue exceeded the complexity of the game, and thus its massive power wasn't really put to use. Consider Tic-Tac-Toe for instance. No matter how powerful a computer is, I can guarantee it'll never beat me. The game is just too simple.