Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:18:08 01/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2000 at 18:21:43, Mike Castañuela wrote: >On January 20, 2000 at 17:55:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 20, 2000 at 12:10:41, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On January 20, 2000 at 11:05:53, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>>How about IBM DBII vs the top 5 SSDF programs on fastest machines in >>>>>a tournamet (multi-processors allowed)? >>>>> >>>>>IMHO: IBM DBII ties for first (+2, =3, 0). :) >>>>> >>>>>Hey, it's just speculation. Have some fun with it. :) >>>>> >>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>Chris Carson >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I'm not convinced that IBM DB11 would always necesarily win a 6 game match >>>>with every top program every time. You might be very surprised.S.T. >>> >>>Valid point. >>> >>>I was being very conservative. I agree with you. There are some very >>>strong programs out now. :) >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Chris Carson >> >> >>Doesn't matter. What appears strong to a class B player doesn't necessarily >>appear strong to a master. DB pretty well proved itself rating and performance >>wise. Both against humans and computers... > >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.) > Au Contrare... have you seen his comments about himself that he has made in public. Claiming to be the strongest against humans, against computers, against anything? Yes I think he doesn't want to face a machine in tournament play. But I doubt it has anything to do with fear... just has a lot to do with the mental effort to play a silicon opponent vs a carbon opponent... >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). That is funny. Since he beats the micros, and lost to DB. Doesn't that ring just a bit false, upon examination??? His exact words were "I could tell that when I played the first game, I was playing against something "new". something that had not been seen before in a computer program..." He was quite specific that DB was _far_ stronger and significantly different from any other program he had ever faced. This was in the interview after round one of match 2. > >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). > >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. > >I know that DB is better, but not for so much, IMHO. The TPR of DT (not deep blue) was 2650 factoring out the games at the front of the playing string that crushed its rating. DT's official USCF rating was 2551, counting a tournament that it did horribly in due to hardware and software bugs in the first parallel version. DB's TPR so far is in the 2700+ range overall. And note that DB2 (that beat Kasparov) was far stronger than DB in the first match, which was far stronger that the old Deep Thought that had that official 2551 rating and the 2650 TPR during the Fredkin prize run...
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.