Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:54:45 01/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 1999 at 01:28:23, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>I do not think that IBM payed to the right people to help them. >> >>Why not? Kasparov is still complaining about it. Sounds like they were >>successful to me. You can almost always get better people, but you shouldn't >>argue with success. > >I expected deeper blue to play better If it did not play up to your expectations, then IBM should have hired different people (i.e. did not hire the right people?)? This sounds strange to me. Your example below of a 10 speed differential and the program still lost proves that IBM did hire some good people. When did Fritz3 ever beat the world champion in match play? How do you know that Deep Blue wasn't programmed to play better against humans at the sacrifice of playing not as well against computers? rom one year to the next and only a 2x speed improvement, Deep Blue went from losing to winning. Probably due to the work of people like GM Joel Benjamin in having the program understand chess just a little better. It's always easy to criticize the work of others, even if they are successful. >It won only because of stupid mistakes of kasparov in the 2 games that it >won(resigning in a draw position and going to a line that you were not ready to >go). Chess is a game of making mistakes. Players do not win at chess, their opponents lose. Even the best players in the world make mistakes. Years ago, a chess program playing against a GM hung a bishop on purpose. The GMs observing the game thought that the program was really poorly written to do that. That is, until they analyzed the game and found that without the program hanging the bishop, the GM had mate in 8. Is hanging the bishop the mistake, or is allowing the mate the mistake. You decide. If you take the position that the program should have allowed the mate since it may be difficult for a GM to see a mate in 8, it would have been real embarrassing (to the programmers, not the program) to lose by being mated when it could have been avoided. If you take the position that the program should have hung the bishop, then again, the program eventually lost. The program's position was lost in either case, hence, any port in a storm and all that. It's real hard to understand a criticism of the Deep Blue team when Kasparov is the one who made the mistakes, not Deep Blue. Your posting does not make sense to me. If Deep Blue would have played stronger, wouldn't have Kasparov just have made his mistakes earlier and your statement would still hold. You could still say that you expected it to play stronger since Kasparov made mistakes. The program could have done an exhaustive search out 20 ply and your statement could still hold. > >Their previous machine failed to win the computer championship >and did only 3.5 out of 5 (they lost against Fritz3 and drew against wchess when >the Fritz3 and wchess used pentium90). > >They were at least 10 times faster than the opponents and it did not help them. > >Uri
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.