Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:11:45 10/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2002 at 05:05:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 18, 2002 at 03:55:01, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>On October 17, 2002 at 17:55:20, Louis Fagliano wrote: >> >>>On October 17, 2002 at 16:18:40, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >>> >>>>On October 17, 2002 at 15:18:48, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>Why? Because even if Kramnik wins the last game, It doesn't make it look like >>>>>Deeper Blue was really any better than Deep Fritz. And also, it shows computers >>>>>to be up at the top, and also gives Kasparov a big incentive to beat that result >>>>>vs. Deep Junior. >>>>> If the end result were 3-5 to Kramnik, it wouldn't look so close. Now it's it's >>>>>almost a question of luck what happens in the one last game. >>>>> The last game of Kasp.vs DB, the luck was on the DB side, because kasparov had >>>>>just gone to the end of his nerves. >>>>> >>>>>Don't forget Kramnik had the program, long before, and Kramnik is probably a bit >>>>>stronger than Kasparov VS computers. So DB already doesn't look like it was >>>>>stronger. >>>>>S.Taylor >>>> >>>>So far DF7 has not won a game, Kramnik has lost both. I have yet to see a game >>>>where DF7 controled the game, i am not impressed. >>>> >>>>Regards >>>>Jonas >>> >>>Well, just plain outplaying a super GM is not one of a computer's strengths. DF >>>got it's wins by alertly pouncing on Kramnik's tactical errors instead of >>>outplaying him and that's because that's where it's strength lies. >>> >>>But alertly pouncing on your opponent's tactical errors is still part of the >>>game of chess and is certainly a legitimate way to win. >>> >>>Thus, the last hurdle for computers to jump would be to win by outplaying a >>>super GM. They are not able to do that yet. But few people think that that day >>>will never come. >> >>Well DF7 would not have had to have outplayed Kramnik, like Rebel did in one of >>it's games against Van Wely, but simply keeping an advantage and winning the >>endgame, that would have been enough to impress me. >> >>Kramnik made an outright blunder in his first loss and in his second loss, the >>concrete solid Kramnik all of a sudden wants to win a beauty price, with a >>knight sac that is as speculative as spectacular. >> >>No matter where the computers strenght lies (and there are a lot of games that >>shows they can even outplay the strongest human players) it should be able to >>atleast win on it's own, without "help" from Kramnik. > >If the theoretical result of the game is a draw then >it means that it is impossible to win without help of the opponent. That's like telling fat people that they are fat because they eat too much. In other words, "true but not helpful." My view of quality chess competition is a bit different from that expressed above. I don't like the "vulture approach" to chess where you just play solid moves and wait for the opponent's blunder. Essentially, that's what Fritz is being accused of doing. A better approach is to set very difficult problems for the opponent. The CREATION of subtle problems, which would be very difficult for a Kramnik, is a tall order. But that's what I would like to see Fritz doing. Unfortunately, coming up with such problems might require "creativity." Then the question becomes: "Is it possible to program 'creativity' into a computer program?" Bob D. > >If you talk about stupid mistakes then Deeper blue also won because of stupid >mistakes of the opponent. > >resigning in a draw position and playing an opening that kasparov was not >prepared to play. > >I did not expect Fritz to win on it's own. >I expected kramnik to win almost every game after knoeing the conditions >of the match. > >Hsu said in the chat that if the Fritz team were competitive they should not >agree to the conditions of the match and I do not agree with him. > >It is the opposite. > >If a program is really good it can beat everybody even when the opponent gets >the machine before the match. > >If the program is not deterministic in the opening stage the human has no way to >prepare a killer line because even if he gets the program out of book by means >of 1.a3 then he cannot know if the program is going to choose 1...e5 or 1...d5 >and even if he guess correctly he cannot be sure about the next not forced move. > >Uri
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.