Author: Amir Ban
Date: 14:25:57 07/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2000 at 16:43:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) > Yes of course. I forgot that you are an expert and a shining example in that too. Amir >He needs _more_ help there... > >
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.