Author: Don Dailey
Date: 08:30:42 04/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
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. 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. > >Jonatahn Baxter. This might make an interesting poll question but it can only be guessed at. From a single match, the only information that can be gleaned is that there is a slightly greater chance that Deep Blue is the better player. If we factor in all things we know about Kasparov, computer chess and mix in all our superstitions then we have much greater leeway for discussion. But your wording of the question is very biased because it assumes that everyone thinks Deep Blue is better. Since it's completely unclear we might reword it to what is the approximate strength difference between Kasparov and Deep Blue? - Don
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.