Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:47:49 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 08:25:32, Amir Ban wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 22:00:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 18, 2000 at 16:26:08, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On July 18, 2000 at 11:05:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>I wouldn't begin to claim that DB "outplayed" kasparov in 97. I do claim that >>>>it "beat" him, of course. :) >>>> >>>>But in the above, the point is can you find any specific weakness in DB that >>>>would lead to GMs discovering that and beating it like a drum? Can you find >>>>any weakness in Deep Junior that would lead to GMs discovering that and beating >>>>it like a drum? >>>> >>>>That is the main difference I see. We _all_ saw the king safety/blocked >>>>position problem in Dortmund. We didn't see any such problem in DB'97. It >>>>must have weaknesses. But obviously no glaring weaknesses. DB'96 had them. >>>>Deep Junior (and every other program) of 2000 has them. DB'97 was something >>>>'different' in that regard, even though many want to pound their chests and >>>>say "mine is clearly and obviously better" or "it was just a fast/dumb machine." >>>>Both are far from truth. >>> >>>I quote Garry Kasparov who told me that game 1 of the DB'97 match was "a typical >>>computer game". Deeper Blue showed gross misunderstanding of king safety and was >>>smashed. >>> >>>Amir >> >> >>Why don't you quote him after game 2? The picture 'changed'. Or after game >>three where he was suddenly sure it was getting outside help it was playing >>so 'un-computer-like'. >> >>??? > >He said it in exactly this context. He didn't understand what changed the naive >computer that played against him in the first game into what he saw in the >second. > >Amir It was the _same_ program, as we now know after hearing from the DB guys on several occasions. So either he thought it was an idiot. Or a chess savant. Or both. However, after game 1, I didn't see Kasparov do any real anti-computer things that worked. In fact, in game 1 it didn't work either... His comments were more on the order of excuse-making rather than informative. As far as "what changed the ...". Perhaps his concept of "naive" is "I can beat it" and his concept of "something new and never seen before" is "something I can't beat"??? After all, it _was_ the same program in both games, no changes of any kind between rounds 1 and 2.
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.