[Komodo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even though I tried at one point, I never got really good at chess. I seemed to have taken to backgammon and poker a lot better for whatever reason. But I was surprised by your comment about reading your opponent in chess:

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I didn't think Big Blue had any opponent reading built into it. It just analyzed the current board and made the best play, regardless of its opponent's past actions. And of course it was able to beat the world champ. Can computers still beat the best in chess? Do they read their opponents' tendencies or just make the "optimal" play based on the board?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without getting too much into the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue match, Kasparov's style exerts enormous psychological pressure on his opponents because he is a relentless attacker and wonderful tactician. Obviously, a computer feels no pressure, has no regard for the reputation of its opponent, and almost never miscalculates tactical combinations. Although Kasparov won the first Deep Blue match, the IBM developers worked hard to update the computer's opening repertoire and move selection algorithm. One of the keys in the second match was that the computer would calculate at 12 ply (6 move pairs.) If Kasparov made a move the computer expected, it would play the next move in its +EV sequence almost immediately. This time-saving strategy put enormous pressure on Kasparov because he did not have as much time to calculate deep lines as he would against a human opponent.

The last major computer vs. human match I've heard of was GM Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz - the "Brains in Bahrain" competition. Kramnik won 6-2, with no losses. Kramnik's deeply positional style yielded few tactical opportunities for the computer. A computer's move selection algorithm will always play the most +EV move in the same position, regardless of its opponent. I suppose the algorithm could be personalized based on the opponent.

If I'm playing someone I don't know, then it's hard to make a "read" that influences my move selection. Just because my opponent plays a defensive opening doesn't mean he's incapable of attacking. However, chess history is full of stories of match opponent preparation designed to exploit specific weaknesses. At that level of play, move A in a certain position may work against one player while move B in the same position may be preferable against another player. In that case, moves are dependent on "reading the opponent." The difference is that these reads are made before the game instead of during the game.

ScottieK

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about scott?
Im almost certain the match finnished 3-3 with one loss for each side.
I agree on the other part on the post though. Much in chess is read dependent or just striving for positions where you play at your best. You play the player very very much in chess.