Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 13:54:09 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
And even if Kasparov forced them to play several matches with exactly the same machine that would later play him, and publish the games, they could easily modify some positional weights - e.g. scale down king safety, increase bishops pair bonus, etc. Program will then play absolutely different, and it will be 100% fair, as Kasparov itself played against DB in the style that is very different from his normal style. Eugene On January 13, 2000 at 10:17:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 13, 2000 at 06:05:23, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On January 12, 2000 at 14:45:13, Rajen Gupta wrote: >> >>>from the atrocious results of rebel vs grandmasters it is pretty clear that once >>>humans get the feel of playing against computers or even a particular computer, >>>they (ie humans)would get the better of computers.It is a fact that kasparov had >>>no opportunity at all to evaluate deep blue while the reverse was not true.In >>>all fairness kasparov should have been allowed a couple of weeks with deep >>>blue-he would have identified the holes and blasted through them-just as the >>>humans are now doing to rebel >>> >>>rajen gupta >> >>GK should not have been given a few weeks to play with DB prior to the match. >>That's silly and obviously unfair. However, I think forcing GK to go into the >>match cold was also unfair. >> >>GK prepares for matches by studying how his opponents played in previous >>tournaments. IMHO, DB should have played in a few tournaments before taking on >>the champ. >> >>But it's all a moot point now... >> >>-Tom > > >Remember that DB Jr _did_ play in lots of matches prior to the Kasparov >match. Of course, many of those were DB-1 processors. And the rest had >DB-2 processors, but only one SP processor. And then the problem would be >that they were modifying the software right up to the match, which would >make it play differently. And they modified it during the match, which >could make a hole found in game one disappear by game 2. > >So his position there is really not tenable. games wouldn't have helped >a bit. I'd love to play him a 6 game blitz match on ICC. And I'd happily >give him 100 games from Crafty played 3-6 months ago for him to study. The >program isn't the same today as it was 6 months ago. Holes that were there >are gone. Holes that weren't there probably are now. Making a match plan >based on old games would be foolish. Just as foolish as making a match plan >based on how Fritz played. We _know_ how badly that backfired. :) Game 6 >showed that he who plans based on fritz, dies by the plan based on Fritz. > >:) > >Bob
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.