Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:09:42 02/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2002 at 15:34:43, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 25, 2002 at 15:08:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 25, 2002 at 13:17:22, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 25, 2002 at 10:35:00, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>I was recently in contact with Hsu, where I asked him if there was anyway that >>>>he would either a.) sell the technology in DB or b.) donate this information to >>>>someone (Hyatt comes to mind) who would put it to use and keep it safe from >>>>being commercial use. >>>> >>>>Basically he told me he only bought the rights to rematch Kaspy (who refused). >>>>And to keep IBM off his back, if he decided to make a Shogi engine. Period. No >>>>other reasons. He will never sell/commercialize/donate/share his information. >>>>Ever. >>>> >>>>What a terrible, terrible dissappointment. >>> >>>Not disappointment for me >>>I guess that the thing is simply not strong enough. >> >>That is absolutely the _worst_ reasoning I have ever seen. Do you also >>guess that when it rains when you have something planned, that the clouds >>have something against you? >> >>It was strong enough to smash computer programs for a long while. It was >>strong enough to beat kasparov in a 6 game match. I'll bet _other_ engine >>authors wish theirs was "not that strong"... > >I said *is* not strong enough and not *was* not strong enough Hsu has already written that his chess chip in .18 micron would search around 30M nodes per second. I think everyone would find that plenty strong enough since it is 15 times faster than quad boxes... > >> >>IE they didn't win most every ACM event after 1986 because of of luck... >> >>> >>>It is not clear if the result of deeper blue against kasparov is better than the >>>result of Rebel against van wely if you remember that van wely trained a lot >>>against rebel before the match when kasparov could not train against something >>>similiar to deeper blue. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>There's _still_ quite a jump from van Wely to Kasparov... And van Wely wasn't >>playing for a $1,000,000 prize either. > >I agree that kasparov is clearly better than van wely but van wely admitted that >he trained by playing 100 games against Rebel and the question in comparing the >results is how much elo you can get by preparing against a known computer and >not only against computers. > >The 1000000$ prize did not help kasparov to play better. I disagree. It was a _strong_ motivation. I would work _much_ harder to win 1M dollars than I would to win 1000. > >He played well in 4 of the games but in the games that he lost he did mistakes >that he usually does not do against humans. > >Kasparov never resigned in a drawn position against humans and he simply >believed that the machine is stonger than it's real strength(I guess that he >believed that Qe3 cannot be a draw because the machine could not blunder to let >him a tactical draw so he did not check it when it was clear that it had better >position) > >Uri I won't try to speculate on what he did or didn't think. But your idea doesn't make much sense. Why would he assume that some position was won, and then assume that the machine wouldn't make a mistake and allow a perp by Qe3? If that were true, wouldn't he have simply resigned at the start of the game rather than playing on?
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.