Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:43:44 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 15:09:48, Amir Ban wrote: >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 Or at least suggest that he contact me for some training in manners and public relations. :) He needs _more_ help there... > > >>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.