Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 13:43:15 01/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2003 at 16:03:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 13, 2003 at 15:10:30, Frank Phillips wrote: > >>On January 13, 2003 at 00:25:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2003 at 18:02:55, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2003 at 16:42:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 11, 2003 at 09:24:34, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>>> >>>>>look to analysis from Seirawan. June 1997. they crack down deep blue everywhere >>>>>from technical viewpoint. And Kasparov even more. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Have you got a link. The best I found was a book was $46. >>>> >>>>Your contention is that these errors were so gross (even though apparantly not >>>>punished by the best player in history, probably) that no modern micro make >>>>them? Interesting: I am not able to judge but would be interested in seeing the >>>>link. >>>> >>>>Frank >>> >>> >>>When they criticize arguable the best player on the planet even _more_ than >>>they criticize DB, I think you can make an intelligent guess at how accurate >>>the "criticism" really is... >> >> >>What I find interesting is this: >> >>if Deep Blue was very good and did not make losing positional errors; >>if Deep Blue is better, or no worse, than Junior or Fritz (ie Junior has no >>magic formula to offset Deep Blue's speed advantage); >>and Fritz held Kramnik; and >>Junior performs well against Kasparov; > >Are you stating this as facts? Fritz held Kramnik?? Of course the truth is >different. Also I don't understand how you could take such exhibitions to answer >such questions. This is not possible. October 2-22nd 2002 score 4-4. And Kramnik had the exact program in advance. No other data. Seemed pretty serious preparation, if taken at face value. > > > >> >>then perhaps computer chess is closer to besting mankind than I had previously >>believed and we do not need a mega-monster processor to be able to do it. > >You seem to be unaware of the many different implications of your terminology. >"Besting mankind". What does this mean? It was said that even the close win of >DB2 was NOT a proof for "besting". Of course besting 99,99% of mankind. But we >talk about the best possible human chess. And there you are again in the problem >of exhibitions. To make it short. Human chess tradition is not based on Swiss >System tournament chess where you have to play unknown opponents. Not sure I understand your point and your use of the word proof, which I did not use My prejudice has been (and still is) that we need something with the power and complexity of Deep Blue to be better (on average) than the best human chess players at over the board chess at standard time controls. Recent events have challenged that notion for me. As to Kasparov playing an unknown opponent, this is a reasonable point. But I doubt that in other matches his opponents had to promise to play as they normally did - as in Kramnik versus Fritz for example. Even if this was a real advantage, I think it still demonstrates that the gap in performance between DB and GK was not massive over those six games played. Whether that would have been true over further games we will never know. > > >> >>Unfortunately I find Vincent's points ambiguous in this respect, since he seems >>to claim that Deep Blue played crap yet Kasparov played worse - I think he might >>have even implied deliberately, but I may have misunderstood him. >> >>I guess we will see at the end of January....or not. >> >>Frank > >No, it could well be that Vincent is quite right and still DB2 was better than >all of the actual commercial progs. BTW Vincent isn't alone with this opinion. >Other GM said the same. Another aspect is the question if Kasparov was sure to >play a third match. But I don't want to speak in Bob's voice. Yes it could be that they both played crap; and DB is better or worse than commercials. > >Rolf Tueschen
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.