Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:25:10 08/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2001 at 02:57:51, Peter Berger wrote: >On August 09, 2001 at 12:33:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On August 09, 2001 at 07:12:11, Tanya Deborah wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>Hi! >>> >>>Is really Deep Fritz running in 8 processors stronger that Deep Blue (97)??? >>> >>> >>>I hear that Deep Fritz 7 will see 5 millions nodes per second. It is enough to >>>beat the World Champion??? >>> >>>I think that if Deep Fritz could see 500 millions nodes per second, Kramnik will >>>be dead. >>> >>>And why i find an article that said that Deep Fritz 7 recently beat Deep Blue, >>>the same machine that beat Kasparov in 1997. It is true????? Where i can find >>>the games?? >>> >>>Thanks a lot! >> >>Reporters seem to be like chess players, in a sense. If you give them a >>position that is recognizeable, they will see patterns and understand stuff and >>make a sensible move. >> >>If you set the board up randomly, they will look at it and not be able to handle >>it, and won't make a good move. >> >>When a reporter covers computer chess, all of them see a scrambled board. And >>since they are also under time pressure, their moves are all crap. >> >>No, DeepFritz did not recently beat Deep Blue. >> >>Fritz 4 (or maybe 3?) beat Deep Thought II in one game in 1995. Old versions of >>both, both running on wimped out hardware by today's standards. >> >>It's intriguing bait for reporters, because the precursor machines really did >>play. But they can't get from that idea to something factual. >> >>bruce >> >>>Tanya D. > >I don't think many reporters were really thinking of this Hongkong game. More >likely they were confused by the qualifier against Deep Junior. > >With Deep Blue,Deep Blue Junior and Deep Junior it's easy to fail. > >And if they read that Fritz qualified in a computer match to challenge the >worldmaster they probably assumed Deep Blue as a logical opponent. Also, if they hear that there was a qualifier, they assume that the best programs played -- they assume that the winner is our de-facto champion. It is possible that the best programs did play, but it's true that many who might have won did not play. Something tells me that *nobody* anywhere near this event has mentioned that we have a computer world champion, and it is not Fritz. This is leading down very predictable lines. bruce > >pete
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.