>The way Deep Blue worked, was by playing the game through
>to every possible conclusion before making its move.
Not according to IBM.
>You wouldn't expect a standard chess engine to play
>through any more than the next eight moves or so, as even
>that results in several million possibilities.
True.
The difference between deep blue and deeper blue was in the dedicated chess hardware. The machine that beat Kasparov, was also trained specifically on every recorded Kasparov game. Even the IBM engineers later admitted that it was specifically designed as a kasparov killer, and that another chess master could very well have beaten it as it was playing from knowledge of Kasparov.
Andy
>to every possible conclusion before making its move.
Not according to IBM.
>You wouldn't expect a standard chess engine to play
>through any more than the next eight moves or so, as even
>that results in several million possibilities.
True.
The difference between deep blue and deeper blue was in the dedicated chess hardware. The machine that beat Kasparov, was also trained specifically on every recorded Kasparov game. Even the IBM engineers later admitted that it was specifically designed as a kasparov killer, and that another chess master could very well have beaten it as it was playing from knowledge of Kasparov.
Andy