Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:22:56 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 13:30:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 25, 2001 at 12:19:01, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On April 24, 2001 at 23:58:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2001 at 22:49:32, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On April 24, 2001 at 14:05:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>I think the other question is the issue... can GT withstand DB? Remember that >>>>>in the original games played against commercial programs in 1997, DB was >>>>>crushing them all. And it was crushing them all by playing kingside attacks. >>>>>That was Hsu's main criticism of Genius and Rebel.. they were totally oblivious >>>>>to the coming storm, until it hit. The games were not endgames. They were >>>>>middlegame crushes. GT seems to be no better than anybody else at seeing >>>>>attacks against itself. In fact, it often self-attacks by being too aggressive. >>>>>I think against DB that would be suicide. >>>> >>>>I think I missed seeing the PGN's of these games, Bob. I don't doubt that there >>>>were some games played by something against something, but I don't think that a >>>>third-hand evaluation of these matches is worth anything, and I think that the >>>>best thing to do would be to forget that they were ever played. Anything said >>>>about those games is not just hearsay, it's hearsay about hearsay. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>> >>>I agree. But sometimes "hearsay" is all there is. And _many_ people heard the >>>hearsay details from Hsu or Campbell at talks they gave. They both reported >>>that the major problem was micro king safety. Which is not a surprise at all, >>>IMHO. I had watched the micros get rolled by attackers over and over and >>>over on ICC... >>> >>>Suggesting that GT would do better than others is a speculative discussion. I >>>have watched a lot of GT games as well, and while it does play very >>>aggressively, it does so in many cases at the expense of its own king safety. >>>Against an opponent that has good king safety itself, this can be dangerous, >>>which was my point. >> >>My point is that it's impossible to make any claims about any of this without >>making people extremely angry. The reason they get angry is that there is no >>way to refute conclusions about something that was only seen in private, and >>there isn't even any way to publicly question the conclusions, because they >>aren't even your conclusions. > >Note that I generally don't "make claims" about DB. I do quite often >respond to outrageous claims made by _others_. If you think about it, Hsu >and SMK are in the same "boat". Both are very good at what they do. Both >get little credit from being good, except for the people that will remove >their blinders and take an honest look at what each accomplished. > > > > >> >>This isn't the way things are supposed to be. I refuse to sit in the shadow of >>that thing for the rest of my life. I think the thing to do is grant it the >>accomplishments it actually achieved, but refuse to extrapolate by giving it the >>world championship by acclaim from 1999-2099. We never got to test the thing's >>capabilities. That's not our fault, it's IBM's fault. >> >>bruce > > >I don't sit in its shadow either. We are slowly "catching up" although that is >possible _only_ because they are standing still and we are not. We will catch >it one day. Absolutely no doubt about that. _unless_ IBM decides to make a >DB 3 for another match... then we would be 10+ years behind them once again. > >I don't think the 2099 number you gave is reasonable. But until the latter part >of the current decade, I doubt there will be a machine comparable to them... >After 2010, I think DB can be relegated to "old news". But at present, it is >still interesting, because we _do_ see pieces of it from time to time. IE DB >Jr was on ICC during the Kasparov/Kramnik match, giving analysis (Murray had >it on). Yes that was very cool from Murray to analyse with it on CCC. Note he reported it got to 12 ply after some minutes and the scores it gave were always moves behind DIEP seeing the same score + PV.
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.