Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:33:07 06/21/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2001 at 17:51:26, Mark Young wrote: >On June 21, 2001 at 17:28:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 21, 2001 at 16:38:58, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On June 21, 2001 at 09:41:01, Pierre Bourget wrote: >>> >>>>From an interview at Kasparovchess site: >>>> >>>>One more serious contest is in store for you, the match with a computer. How are >>>>you preparing for this match? It?s common knowledge that, in preparing for duels >>>>with humans, you don?t rely on a computer?s help much. >>>> >>>>It?s true that I prefer to work in the good old fashion. Well, certainly I will >>>>play training games at home. According to the contract, I will obtain the >>>>printouts of the DeepFritz games in late summer. >>>> >>>>I take this match very seriously and I really believe that the computer will be >>>>a hard nut to crack. The rumors that DeepFritz is a far cry from DeepBlue are >>>>not true to life. I don?t think that DeepFritz is much weaker than DeepBlue. >>>>However, I know that the programmers have made vast headway in the past three >>>>years. Fritz?s play is getting stronger every year. At some moments the machine >>>>really acquires human features - for instance, it sacrifices material with a >>>>view to gaining the initiative. So I am not at all sure that I will be a success >>>>at this match. Of course, the world?s strongest chess players are better at >>>>evaluating positions than computers, but people can get tired and get caught in >>>>time trouble and so on. The end of the match will be the most difficult stage of >>>>all. >>> >>>Kramnik: >>>"I really believe that the computer will be >>>a hard nut to crack." >>> >>>Kramnik: >>>"The rumors that DeepFritz is a far cry from DeepBlue are >>>not true to life." >>> >>>Kramnik: >>>"I don?t think that DeepFritz is much weaker than DeepBlue." >> >> >>Kasparov said _exactly_ the same thing _before_ the match. After the match, >>he said "this was something totally new and unexpected." > >I agree, it is always tough to take GM at their word when talking about chess >matches. Even when the opponent is not human. > >> >>Which statement was correct? foresight or hindsight? > >I agree 100% > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Kramnik: >>>"At some moments the machine >>>really acquires human features - for instance, it sacrifices material with a >>>view to gaining the initiative. So I am not at all sure that I will be a success >>>at this match" >>> >>>The questions that crosses my mind when reading Kramnik?s statements: >>> >>>I. Is this hype for the upcoming match? >> >>It is fear of looking foolish. IE should he lose to Fritz, he _has_ to >>say something to make it look no worse than Kasparov losing to Deep Blue. >>He couldn't _possibly_ say "deep fritz is nowhere near deep blue" and then, >>should the unthinkable happen and he gets blasted, have to face the public >>after losing to something much worse than DB." > >My thoughts exactly. > > >> >> >> >> >>>II. Does GM Kramnik really think he may not beat Fritz? >>>III. How strong does GM Kramnik think Deep Blue was? >> >> >>I'd bet he has _no_ idea, that he hasn't talked to anyone that really knows >>anything about deep blue at all. He is either talking to the ChessBase guys >>(the same ones that told Kasparov that if he practiced against Fritz he would >>be well-prepared to play DB2) or talking to people that simply don't know. >> >>Either is not a big deal since he doesn't have to play deep blue, which means >>that no matter what he says about DB, it won't be confirmed or disproven. > >Are you saying a Grandmaster can tell nothing about a programs strength, even >when he can study the games? Are you saying Kramnik must be a chess programmer >or a chess program expert to understad how strong computers play? > >I don't understand. > >> I'm only saying that in some cases, GM players are unable to judge strengths and weaknesses. IE in game one, the DB pawn push g5 was roundly criticized by GM commentators. Kasparov said "that was the only reasonable try by black to stay in the game." Which is right? Who had enough skill to make the judgement? But way more important, _who_ was totally immersed in the game calculating like mad while the commentators were having a good time? :) I am really saying that Kramnik is being a bit political here. to cover his bets in case he loses. So that he won't be ridiculed with "Hey, kasparov lost to a beast that can destroy fritz, you got beat by fritz itself..." >> >> >>>IV. Is GM Kramnik saying Fritz is competitive at the Elite GM level? >>>V. Is GM Kramnik saying Fritz is a GM Level program? >>>VI. Are we to take GM Kramnik statements as true in his own mind? >> >>When the coach of the #1 college team in the nation prepares to play the #30 >>team, what does he say? "I expect we will blow them out without working up a >>sweat?" or "I expect this to be a really tough game. They are going to be >>motivated by our #1 rating, and they have some really superb players on their >>offense and defense. We will be hard-pressed to win this game and probably >>the team that gets the most lucky breaks will come away with the victory." >> >>Do you think the coach would ever say anything else? IE provide "locker room" >>incentives for the opposing coaches to use? In that light, how would you take >>Kramnik's comments? > >That is the Question, are we to take GM Kramnik at his word. I don't know GM >Kramnik, so I can not make that judgement. I don't know him either. However, here his "word" doesn't mean anything... he is must making dramatic statements. He isn't "swearing on a bible that he thinks Fritz is as good as deep blue 2, or whatever." He is just making "hype" IMHO, which is perfectly normal in most any kind of competitive event.
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.