Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:52:16 07/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 1998 at 23:40:30, blass uri wrote: > >On July 13, 1998 at 22:50:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 13, 1998 at 22:03:09, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>h >>>On July 13, 1998 at 18:03:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>And giving them more tournaments to find these openings is suicidal. So >>>>the key questions to me are: (1) is Fritz the best commercial program? >>>>answer seems to be yes, if you are talking about playing computer vs >>>>computer matches. It's proven that on the SSDF it seems. (2) Is fritz or >>>>any other program a GM? not even close yet. Good chess players find and >>>>exploit holes in every program running. I think that many programs might >>>>fit right in the middle of the IM class, although they will not be nearly >>>>as consistent as IM players, because they will beat an IM on tactics, then >>>>get crushed in an elementary ending. A PC GM is a ways away, IMHO, still. >>>> >>>>Getting closer, but not here. *yet*. But given enough time... >>> >>>So does this mean you do or don't believe Deep Blue of the 1997 >>>match with Kasparov was a GM or just a strong IM with "surprise" >>>value of varying co-efficients in its evaluation function and Kasparov's >>>bad luck to follow bad advice. >>> >>>Deep Blue a true GM or ? >> >> >>DB's a true GM, because DT was a true GM as well. DB played like a 2800 >>GM to beat Kasparov. In reality, it probably is not that good. But I'd bet >>it would "settle in" at way over 2600, maybe over 2700, after playing a bunch >>of games... > >I do not think DT was a true GM >do you think DT is better than the top microcomputers? not just better but significantly better. It was a true GM based on the Fredkin requirement that it play 24 games and that it's performance over 24 straight games remain over 2500. It met that some time back. >I think the positional understanding of microcomputers is now better >than the positional understanding of deep thought. >deepthought had good result and did a GM norm only because humans did >not know how to play against computers like they do now. this may be true, perhaps, although I give more credit to GM players than you do perhaps... because as they were challenging it, they were also comparing notes. They rarely go into a game in a total vacuum, unless there is simply no prior information available. >it had a good result in the nolot test but there are other positions >it fail in seeing tactics for example Deep thought lost its queen in the match >against kasparov very fast. >I believe DB is a GM but it was not tested so we do not know > >> >>But it has nothing to do with micros...
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.