Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:43:55 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 04:02:37, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 03:05:57, Derrick Daniels wrote: > >>On August 28, 2001 at 10:02:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 28, 2001 at 06:25:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On August 27, 2001 at 16:30:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>the only one that beated kasparov is kasparov himself. >>>> >>>>You know that and i know that, and even the last match he >>>>again seemed to get away with his FM/IM level of play. >>>> >>>>Suppose kasparov would have won that last game playing a najdorf >>>>with black. >>>> >>>>How would deep blue look like then? >>> >>> >>>It would _still_ look exactly the same to me. It beat Kasparov in a long >>>game. It showed it could play endgames with him on equal footing, something >>>that no other program has ever shown. I personally didn't think that DB2 >>>would win the match. I had predicted 4-2 for Kasparov. I'm not sure it >>>would win a third match if it was unchanged from the second match. Kasparov >>>was psyched, to be sure. But that _still_ doesn't mean DB2 couldn't play >>>chess. It _obviously_ could, based on the games vs Kasparov, plus the other >>>exhibition games it played... >> >> >> >> I think it is no less then "insane" to so that Deep blue couldn't play chess, >>because it made a few rediculous moves, as if all strong grandmasters play >>perfect chess, the best judge of any chess game is the result. Deep Blue >>performed miracles in the endgame against Kasparov, when many grandmasters >>thought that it was lost, in my opinion, more then impressive. > >There is a problem with comparing results of commercial programs >and results of a program that is not available. > >Kasparov could not train against deeper blue and learn about >Deeper blue's weaknesses before the match. > >opponents of the commercial programs can train against them before >the game. > >This is the reason that the fact that Deeper blue performed better >than the other chess programs of today does not convince me that >deeper blue is really better than them. > >My opinion about Deeper blue(1997) is better than vincent's but >I still believe that it is worse than Deep Fritz or Deep Junior >on the hardware that is going to be used against kramnik. > >Uri Perhaps we will see. I hope that Murray has DB Jr on ICC when the games are played, as he has done in the past from time to time. Then we can see what _it_ thinks compared to DF. If he's there, I'll bet you will be surprised. Regardless of all the hype and anti-hype, DB is far stronger than many give it credit for. Just because it is not available for public scrutiny, doesn't mean it is NFG. It did beat GM after GM in public matches. It did rip the rest of the computer chess world for 10 years, with a one-game exception. It did beat the best player in the world. And lowly Deep Thought was the first machine to sustain a rating > 2600 against GM opposition to win the Fredkin prize. And after DT came DB and DB2, each of which was definitely far stronger than the previous machine. However, arguing does seem pointless...
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.