Author: Robert Raese
Date: 06:19:45 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 09:15:22, Gordon Rattray wrote: >On April 29, 2001 at 08:41:34, Dana Turnmire wrote: > >>On April 29, 2001 at 08:30:42, Gordon Rattray wrote: >> >>>On April 29, 2001 at 08:05:40, Dana Turnmire wrote: >>> >>>>On April 29, 2001 at 07:46:51, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>What kind of champion Kramnik really is? Did Kasparov requested to pratice >>>>>>against Kramnik three months before Kramnik himself challenge him?. NO!, >>>>>>therefore, if he is going to represent the human kind he should do it with >>>>>>honor. >>>>>> >>>>>>Pichard. >>>> >>>> Is It honorable for the chess program team to have access to Krammik's games >>>>on database to prepare for the openings? You sound like a spokesman for >>>>robotkind. I support mankind. >>>> I thought Deep Blue had an incredible advantage over Kasparov. >>> >>>But Kramnik *will* have access to some games by the computer too! For example, >>>supposing Deep Junior eventually plays Kramnik, I can download many games played >>>by Deep Junior. There is a big difference between access to games and access to >>>the player! >>> >>>I don't particularly support mankind or "robotkind", but I do support fair >>>matches and this match is turning out to be a joke. Unfortunately if Kramnik >>>wins it, people will summarise the result as "a human beat a computer in the >>>last man-machine match". They won't append "...but the human practiced against >>>the program for three months prior... and there may have been a stronger program >>>that didn't get a chance to compete... etc etc." >>> >>>Why did you think Deep Blue had an incredible advantage over Kasparov? Was it >>>because in *some* (not all) aspects it was a better chess player? >>> >>>Gordon >> >> The Deep Blue team had access to years of Kasparov's games with a GM preparing >>the opening books. Kasparov was playing completely blind. He wasn't even >>allowed to see any games by the program. > >Are you suggesting that anyone entering a match must be able to supply their >opponent a minimum number of games? > >It is the *player's* responsibility to conduct their own preparation, and the >opponent should have *no* responsibility for assisting that preparation. Deep >Blue played games prior to the Kasparov match (e.g. against David Levy and also >other computers) - if the Kasparov team couldn't find these then that is their >problem (although I doubt this was the case!). Alternatively, if you are >suggesting that these games are redundant since the machine was constantly >changing (e.g. from Deep Thought to Deep Blue, etc), then Kasparov also changes >the way he plays and if he doesn't change much, then once again that it up to >him. > >A player has to make do with what games are available. If this amounts to a >small collection, then they have to make do with that. Prior to many human >world championships, the players participate in secret training matches against >"sparring partners". This allows them to test new opening ideas, etc. Should >these games be made available to their future opponent prior to the match? I >very much doubt it. > >It is pathetic for any player to request information about their opponent other >than what is already publicly available. yes, very squirmy and weak.
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.