Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 11:53:17 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. The two games Kramnik lost, where not your typical drawn positions, so your logic (however true in a perfect world it might be) does not apply here. When i say "help" i don't mean the normal small inaccuracies that both human and computers make troughout any given game it/they play, when i say "help" it is a nice way of saying "giving away". >If you talk about stupid mistakes then Deeper blue also won because of stupid >mistakes of the opponent. And your point is? i mean if that is infact the case, then how come the two (on the paper) strongest computers to date can not do what other weaker programs have done before, namely outplay the opponent without any "help" from the human. >resigning in a draw position and playing an opening that kasparov was not >prepared to play. Just because a position is proved to be drawn in the aftermath, does not mean that kramnik could have drawn the actual game. >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. That does not explain why the DF team allowed an exchange of queens 3 games in a row, thereby further minimizing their chances of actually allowing fritz the chance of winning on it's own. Furthermore the two games it "won" was due to kramnik's shortcomings (in lack of a better word) not a real effort from the DF team or fritz by itself. >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. Still i have not seen any attempt from the DF team to actually play for the win in any of the games so far. >It is the opposite. > >If a program is really good it can beat everybody even when the opponent gets >the machine before the match. Only if it get's the chance. >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. I am not sure what your point with this is... Regards Jonas
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.