Author: Omid David
Date: 10:09:11 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 12:38:34, Knut Bjørnar Wålberg wrote: >If Kramnik mops the floor with Deep Fritz, a rather odd situation might arise: >What will most strengthen the belief that the top human(s) is in fact better >than any machine/program ever created? > >That Kasparov later crushes Deep Junior, or that he loses? > >If Kasparov wins without problems, it could be argued that the Chessbase >products are clearly not up to the standard of Deep Blue. However, if Kasparov >loses, then DF and DJ should at least be on par with DB2, and therefore Kramnik >is even stronger, and it's just Kasparov that doesn't know how to play >computers. > >I know there are other factors that come into play (especially the way the >players were able to prepare), but how do you all think the world in general >will perceive these different scenarios? What is the ideal score in the two >matches when it comes to creating interest in chess and computer chess? > >As a final note, it seems to me that Deep Blue might end up as a sort of Bobby >Fischer of computer chess; Perceived by many as the greatest ever, a statement >that one can neither prove nor disprove at the moment. Any comments on that? ;) > >Knut Bjørnar Wålberg Arguing against Junior or Fritz, saying Deep Blue was better, is ridiculous. It's exactly like saying Fischer is better than Kasparov or Kramnik. Deep Blue was the strongest at its time, so was Fischer at his time, they both retired, and so they're both irrelevant. The cheating poker player [IBM] swiftly took the money [the credit] and left the town [dismantled the machine].
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.