Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 05:42:54 08/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 1998 at 22:35:16, Ed Schröder wrote: >The overall advantage is for the computer in this area. A computer can make >no mistakes. No holes in his memory. This advantage is by far superior to >incidental opening preparation by a human on a computer chess program. > >Look at Aegon and other Man versus Machine events. Humans are scared >for the computer books and play unusual openings. > >Look at Deep Blue-Kasparov and Rebel-Anand. Even these super players >try to get the computer out of their books as soon as possible. > >- Ed - This is the very reason why I believe [and have suggested previously elsewhere] that Deep Blue had an UNFAIR advantage against Kasparov. Deep Blue had complete, perfect, and unstantaneous access to it's record of it's entire opening repertoire whereas Kasparov had to rely on his memory. I feel that the match would have been more fair is Kasparov had been allowed to use a printout of his own opening repertoire. After all, IN EFFECT, that's what Deep Blue had! Similarly, I feel that Deep Blue had another UNFAIR advantage. It also had complete, perfect, and almost unstantaneous access to a very large database of GM games. Kasparov was denied that access. That was unfair, too. It's no wonder that Kasparov lost his second match with Deep Blue. The match did not, in my opinion, demonstrate Deep Blue's superiority at playing chess. It merely demonstrated that it could unfailingly refer to it's own repertoire and to the database. A more fair contest would have equalized, to the extent practical, the access of the two contestants to their repertoires and databases. But, philosophically, one could write this whole thing off with "Who said life is fair?" So much for morality and ethics! Money talks.
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.