Author: Mike Castañuela
Date: 16:10:29 01/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2000 at 18:46:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 20, 2000 at 18:21:43, Mike Castañuela wrote: >[snip] >>Prof. Hyatt: >>I wonder, after many messages readed related to this topic, >>why so much pleitesy of you towards DB? >> >>1. Kasparov has proved to be the best player, BUT definitely not the best >> in playing against machines, as is recognized by himself >> (see comments by him about Frankfurt Tournament, about Fritz, Genius, etc.) >>> >With this assertion, I agree. He's still among the top 3 or 4 in the world, >though, even against computers. ><< > >>2. Kasparov also say (and obvioulsy he knows because he played both): >> "DB is dumber comparing to micro's programs" or something similar (I think >> he refers to chess knowledge, not calculus capacity). >>> >I guess that Hiarcs would really wax his butt then. Sounds like sour grapes to >me. I mean, if in a hypotethycal scenario, the evaluation function of, say us, Hiarcs/Junior/whatever, if it was mounted/programmed over DB, it should be a better DB. But as you says, who knows? ><< > >>3. The merit (part) of DB against humans was no existence of history games to >> study by part of its oponents (e.g. "black box", in oppsoite to micro >> programs situation). >>> >That was a clear advantage. If I were on the DB team, I would have kept that >information back as well. When playing against the strongest player in the >world, you need every advantage at your disposal. I would also have analyzed >every move Kasparov ever played at one hour time control, and stored it in a >database, so as to know the best possible response. ><< > >>4. If the TPR of DB was grossly ~2550-2600, and Rebel with ~2480 then there >> isn't huge difference, and also Rebel may not be the best representative. >>> >And if the TPR of DB was 12, then Rebel is much better. But it's not. You >can't count old DT matches in with DB. It does not make any sense at all. And >look at the TPR of the final incarnation of DB. I'd say it's a tad over that >range. ><< > >>I know that DB is better, but not for so much, IMHO. >>> >We may never find out the answer to that question. It's certainly the most >interesting thing that ever happened to the game of chess. Here it is, three >years later and there are dozens of posts on it every month still. Ever see a >Linares or Wijk aan Zee get rehashed hundreds of times for week after week, >month after month, year after year with people never tiring of it? ><<
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.