Author: Amir Ban
Date: 03:07:06 05/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1998 at 03:38:24, Danniel Corbit wrote: >On May 11, 1998 at 01:19:15, odell hall wrote: >>I was wondering If anybody thinks that perhaps karpov would be a better >>opponent for deepblue. Since his style is positional and it's hard to >>get anything tactical on him. If such a match were to occur what are >>your match perdictions >This is very much a "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" >question. Despite that, I feel compelled to answer anyway. Deeper Blue >beat the best player in the world. So matching a lesser player would be >silly. Computers are not afraid of styles. Computers never blunder, >unless programmed incorrectly and never get tired or psyched out. >Deeper Blue has been dismantled since the publicity stunt had its >impact. They have nothing to gain by playing again. Hence, we will >never see this match nor any like it. Despite this, Deeper Blue would >probably win anyway. With any player, Karpov, Anand or whoever, they >can load in every game that they have ever played to tune the computer >just for that opponent. You would prepare the same way for a special >foe, but probably would not remember every facet of every game like a >computer database can. A computer can tirelessly analyze day and night >the favorite openings and tendencies of a given player and store that >data for future use. Now, with a garden variety computer program, it >will still get clobbered. But Deeper Blue was not a garden variety >computer program. Computer programs for PC's can already trounce most >club players. We don't really know if Deeper Blue is the equivalent of >a GM, but we do know that it can be tuned to beat the best player in the >world. It does not make sense to believe that it cannot be tuned to >beat the second best or fourth best or tenth best or any other player. >This is not the same thing as entering a tournament and playing a large >collection of players. And it is also possible that Deeper Blue has a >fundamental weakness of some kind that repeated games would uncover. >But such a weakness can be corrected in the software too. Of all the outrageous statements and claims made on behalf of Deep Blue before and after the match, I would rank your post in the top five. You have reduced two generations of inconclusive research and hard work into a few technical formalities that you assume already achieved. Every programmer reading this newsgroup must feel bad that he doesn't know how to do what you claim on his behalf. Amir P.S. I would guess (on very thin evidence I admit), that DB would have a hard time against the world's top 30, though it would score well against some of them.
This page took 0 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.