Author: Mike Hood
Date: 10:32:30 04/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 1999 at 11:21:55, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On April 04, 1999 at 10:02:37, Adnan wrote: > >> >>I think Deep Blue at best is not better than 2650 to 2700 Fide. People are >>overestimating it's strength just because on few games. The twelve games that it >>played in 96 and 97 weren't really impressive. Kasparov *lost* the 97 match by >>playing weak. But as far as the quality of games is concerened, Deep Blue made >>silly blunders, even tactical blunders, something which computers are supposed >>to be at best. For example, Deep Blue's tactical blunder in game 2 that would >>have forced a draw, or tactical blunder in game 6, 1996, where it could not even >>calculate a simple combination accurately and allowed 22. Bxh7+. >> >>If took real pity, I would rate it at 2650 to 2700 Fide -- AT BEST. > >You're certainly entitled to your opinion! You won't convince me without some >concrete variations, though! Maybe provide the FEN position after Black's 21st >move, a winning PV for White, including replies to important deviations for >Black? Or did I miss a previously demonstrated win posted here? > >Dave Gomboc Adnan's point of view is valid. Deep Blue has played too few games to be accurately judged. Any ELO ratings are rough estimations at best. Dave and Adnan have different opinions that have to be left unjudged, unless IBM decides to leave Deep Blue active for a long enough period of time to be examined. And don't forget... IBM's newest supercomputers are bigger and faster than the one that played against Kasparov, so the next incarnation of Deep Blue will play even better. All the same, I consider myself a sceptic, as far as the strength of Deep Blue is concerned. Is the program's strength what you'd expect from a computer so powerful? To ask it another way, how strong would Fritz play on a computer with that power? That's a naive question, because it's impossible to compare a single processor PC with a multi-processor supercomputer, but I think you understand my point. PCs have been relatively weak for years, so PC chess programmers have worked hard on developing smart algorithms to make the best of the available power. I remember playing against Psion on an 8 Mhz 286. That was a brilliant program in its day. I fear (although I hope I'm wrong) that the Deep Blue programmers rely too heavily on the power of the computers they have at their fingertips, and not on the optimization of every last Assembler instruction. Dancer
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.