Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:39:16 01/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2000 at 03:44:14, george petty wrote: >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 Should I really respond to what is obviously a "troll"? I don't think so. >> >>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 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.