Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:15:02 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2000 at 19:42:22, george petty wrote: >On January 13, 2000 at 18:29:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 13, 2000 at 17:27:47, Rajen Gupta wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2000 at 15:36:13, Paul Massie wrote: >>> >>>>One of Kasparov's greatest strengths is his ability to study opponents and >>>>prepare things especially for them. He is actually more versatile than most of >>>>his opponents, so he is better able to prepare surprises for them. Also, he >>>>tends to have more research ability (either personally or through his backup >>>>team), so again he is very successful at preparing for opponents. Since he >>>>wasn't able to see any DB games prior to the match, he wasn't able to utilize >>>>that strength. >>>> >>>>He obviously thought when going into the match that he could still win without >>>>that advantage, but after he lost he was bitterly regretting not having insisted >>>>on a way to prepare specifically for DB. >>>> >>>>Interestingly enough, it seems quite debatable as to whether that should be >>>>considered a reasonable condition for him, or whether it actually constitutes an >>>>unfair advantage to him to be able to prepare at that length. It is clear that, >>>>given a number of games to study, he would have been able to do much better >>>>against DB - providing DB didn't change it's playing style. But why should it >>>>be fair for DB to be forced to remain constant, while Gary is able to adapt to >>>>its style? >>> >>>when one evaluates chessmaster 6000, one can evaluate it with any number of >>>different types of personalities-similarly kasparov should have been allowed to >>>evaluate deep blue with all its potential personalities for a perid of a few >>>weeks-a pretty fair bargain as deep blue was able to evaluate every single game >>>GK >>> >>>rajen gupta >> >> >>There are a nearly infinite number of 'personalities'. This idea is impossible >>to implement. >> >>And then there is the problem with Kasparov's "personalities" as well. He >>played in this match unlike the way he played in any other event in his life. >>Was that fair, assuming the DB guys had studied what he had done in the past? >> >>This is a nonsensical argument from kasparov, and shows how little he knows >>about the insides of a chess program. > > That's utter nonsense!!!!! That's showing complete ignorant!!! > > THINK and try to be half way fair. What you are saying won't fly with most > of the top GM's. They will be laughting at that foolish talk. > > George Let 'em laugh. The ones that laugh know nothing about the computer. The ones that _don't laugh will nod and say "that makes sense." But allowing him to play every "personality" in a program that has roughly 8,000 (Hsu's number) tunable evaluation parameters would take a _long_ time. (Hint: evaluate 8000! [factorial]) How many games per personality would be required? (then think about that number * 8000!). The concept is ridiculous, to say the least. > > Small changes completely modify the >>way it plays...
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.