Author: Graham Laight
Date: 03:44:45 04/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 1998 at 02:55:56, Howard Exner wrote: >On April 22, 1998 at 21:34:39, jonathan Baxter wrote: > >>Far more interesting than how much better DB is against other computers >>is "How much better is DB than humans". DB "thinks" in more or less the >>same way as other programs, yet deeper, so its going to be stronger---so >>what. But against the top humans, well, I for one was not convinced by >>the DB-Kasparov match. > >The only conclusion I drew from the match was the not so profound one >that, "Deep Blue won the 6 game match". Like you I refrained from the >conclusion "Deep Blue must be better than Gary". I could not conclude >that Deep Blue was yet a Super-Grandmaster. Many more games are needed >for >that assertion. I was impressed though by the remarkable defense Deep >Blue >put up in games 3,4 and 5. That must have been disheartening for Gary. > > > >>If DB was in open competition, the Super-GM's >>would quickly find weaknesses in its play, and probably at a rate that >>even IBM's large team could not keep up with fixing. My guess would be >>that after a while DB would struggle to maintain a rating over 2650 >>because the really strong human players would be really well prepared >>gainst it. > >Yes, familiarity breeds not only contempt but rating points too. > >I think Comp vs Human games will remain as fun events as in Anand-Rebel >and Crafty-Yermolinsky (on the internet). Sure wish the Harvard Cup or >something similar would emerge again. As for serious rated play in FIDE >tournaments it will never happen. I believe computer play would be to >closely defined to resemble a form of correspondence chess for them to >be allowed the chance at a GM norm. I don't understand that last sentence. Why would computer play be defined to resemble correspondence chess?
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.