Author: martin fierz
Date: 20:39:45 08/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 22:30:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 12:41:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 18, 2002 at 11:31:54, Chris Taylor wrote: >> >>>On August 18, 2002 at 09:06:02, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>> Kasparov proved that he can defeat programs at fast time controls when he >>>>defeated Deep Thought in a game/90 two games match in 1989. This program was >>>>weaker than Deep Junior is today, as it searched well over 2,000,000 NPS, but >>>>didn't have as much chess knowledge as Deep Junior. He also defeated Deep Blue >>>>in 1996. This program is obviously much faster than Deep Junior is today, but in >>>>my opinion Deep Junior still has more chess knowledge than Deep Blue had back in >>>>1996. >>>> >>>>PS: It is hard to compare Deep Blue of 1997 vs Deep Junior of today, but in my >>>>opinion Deep Junior Chess Knowledge could make up for the difference of Deep >>>>Blue super calculating power of 1997. >>>> >>>>Pichard. >>> >>>One way would be to play some games with Deep Blue and Deep Junior. Guess that >>>would settle once and for all who is the strongest. Or would it just pour fuel >>>on the **whos** best fire. Put together the blue box and match it up. After >>>all it did beat the best player in the world at that time! The advert could be >>>quite powerful. The machine that beat Kaspy goes for Junior. Methinks there >>>could be some money to be made here? So this may not happen, shame? >> >>that will of course never happen. Just like fischer still is world >>champion, deep blue will be world champion in some scientist eyes forever >>too. >> >>To be clear. I feel that any 2650+ player of todaywill wipe out fischer >>if he plays like he played in 1970. >> >>New theory, better tactics, more insight in strategies, better training. >> >>A 2650 player of today is going to crush any world champ from before Karpov >>of course. No doubts. >> >>Robert J Fischer when the rating list started had 2780 or something. that was >>superb compared to anyone in those days. He was the best back then. No one >>was as good. >> >>But the level has improved a lot. Many will say now: "this is not a fair >>compare a modern 2650 player against someone who had only an old >>book from capablanca and tarrasch, if he could read german anyway". >> >>In fact a grandmaster did this comparision. He compared a top tournament >>in 1991 with a top tournament from 1920. The grandmaster was called Nunn >>if i remember well. >> >>The last few players in that tournament around the start of the 20th >>century, they simply blundered away piece >>after piece. Would be rated at most 1500 nowadays. >> >>The 'better players' in the tournament, considered *clear world top* >>back then, they blundered on average 5 times a game. >> >>*no modern topgrandmaster is doing that*., > >That is absurd. I have watched hundreds of GM games as they were relayed >on ICC from various super-GM events around the world. I have seen "top >GM players" overlook a mate in 2, hang pieces, you-name-it. nope, it is not absurd. the top GM players hang pieces in time trouble mostly, and you can't blame them for that. vincent is talking about john nunn's excellent book on tactics, "john nunn's chess puzzles" (or something very similar to that). he compares two tournaments, karlsbad 19-little and the biel interzonal of about 1990. he used fritz in blundercheck mode to get some kind of objective measure of the number of errors being commited in the two tournaments, and the result was that 1920 they were playing abominable chess. some of the players in these top tournaments would lose against mediocre players as vincent and me! the section is called "the test of time", highly recommended. these blunders there are of a totally different kind too - errors that GMs of today would simply not make; not tactical errors but moves which any kid knows he shouldnt play. read the book if you don't believe it or want a better explanation :-) if anything is absurd in vincent's post, it is the claim that fischer would be wiped out by a 2650 player. i won't dwell on this, because the combination of "fischer" and "would have" is detrimental to any discussion... aloha martin >>The level of the world top increases. This is logical. Suppose you >>get to the tennis court with a wooden racket. Even if you're called >>John McEnroe you will be of course get completely annihilated. A wooden >>racket and services of 160KM/hour (the speed at which McEnroe served) it >>is no compare to the 180-220 KM/hour services of modern tennis of today. > > > >That is a poor analogy. In chess, the material the pieces and board is >made of has _nothing_ to do with the game. Unlike Tennis and the raquet >you mentioned... I remain unconvinced that the GMs of today have _any_ >advantage over GMs of days gone by, except perhaps better opening theory. >But then transplant a GM of the past to today and he would know that stuff >as well... > > > > >> >>He won't manage a single break of course. >> >>This is logical. Sport progresses. computerchess even faster. saynig that >>deep blue/deep thought was good in its days is justified. It beated some >>GMs. That the GMs played big shit games because they cared shit as they >>had nothing to proof and would get money anyway, that's no issue here. >> >>The issue is that it is so *obvious* that software in 2002 is much better >>than in 1997 that i am amazed that only Hyatt here doubts it. >> >>>Chris
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.