Author: george petty
Date: 00:44:14 01/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2000 at 23:15:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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." You are not modest are you? If you knew so much about computers, why is your program not up there with the TOP programs, such as Fritz, Rebel, Junior, and Shredder just to name a few? I am afraid there is a lot more people laughing at what you say and do than you think. The top GM's are very gifted and they are up there because they know alot about Chess and Systems, or they will not be where they are. The ones that don't laught, will not know the different between foolish talk and what does make sense. George > >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.