Author: Amir Ban
Date: 12:09:48 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 13:47:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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"??? > Next time I talk to him, I'll suggest that he will contact you for chess lessons. Amir >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.