Author: Slater Wold
Date: 22:30:14 08/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2001 at 18:36:31, Amir Ban wrote: >On August 25, 2001 at 20:47:44, Mig Greengard wrote: > >>Sorry to dredge this up yet again, and ignore this rather than turn it into a >>flame war or something worse. I know feelings on this topic can run hot. >> >>Although we do not have enough of Deep Blue's games to make anywhere near an >>accurate assessment of its chess strength, I am requesting a summary of thoughts >>on how today's top programs measure up on a science level. In the past I've seen >>some admirably objective breakdowns on this topic from Bob Hyatt and a few >>others, but did not save them. >> >>Put Deep Fritz, or other top programs, on the best available platform on which >>they can run, and I imagine this is what they will have in Bahrain, and knowing >>what we do about DB, what comparisons can we make? >> >>Subjective arguments (chess knowledge in particular) are also welcome, but >>should be concise as opposed to argumentative! >> >>Thanks, Mig >> >>Editor-in-chief >>http://www.kasparovchess.com > >I've written on this several times, and to summarize my position, it is that a >machine that is much better than all the others must be shown to play an >objectively good move that the others don't, or at least the others need much >more time to get it. > >During the debate the supporters of Deep Blue's exceptional strength were asked >to name such a move, but failed to show anything convincing. > >This was the situation even in 1997, when PC's and engines were weaker. > >If Deep Blue did not play in its entire career a move that shows exceptional >depth, then I'm not prepared to believe it had it (and if it had it, it was a >wasted career). > >Amir Amen. Slate
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.