Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:50:47 10/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 30, 2001 at 19:06:31, Dr. Franklin wrote: >On October 30, 2001 at 15:32:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 30, 2001 at 14:49:32, Joshua Lee wrote: >> >>>Few So Called "Perfect Games" Exist but According to Some GM's They DO. But To >>>my Main Point Of intrest I know that Some People will Say Deep Blue Is Not as >>>Good As Deep Fritz and Vice Versa But What i would like to know is that if Deep >>>Blue Had Extra Knowledge Like Hiarcs/Shredder/ChessTiger But Even More SO how >>>Could It be Possible to Compare The Two (without The Still In existence Deep >>>Blue Junior) Playing?? I have seen Posts here about DB Jr. Following a game on >>>ICC within the past few years Maybe someone can shed light on this. >>> >>>Also why hasn't anyone contacted the DB team and talked with them or got them to >>>talk here on the messageboard? >> >> >> >>All you have to do is think for a minute to answer _that_ question. There is >>nothing they could say that would appease the anti-deepblue crowd. They would >>simply be drowned in a sea of insults. It happened on r.g.c.c... it would >>happen here. >> >>> >>>I would Like to See One Day before i die an equal Match weather that means A >>>commercial Program Having the Hardware to search 200MPS or Whatever they were >>>ACTUALLY searching or The Knowledge that DB is Supposed to Have that the Newest >>>Programs Don't. >>> >> >>>In that case any analysis of Deep Blue Games Should Be with 36Billion Nodes >>>searched else you don't give an accurate picture......Deep Blue might just have >>>looked at the move Shredder or Deep Fritz thinks is better but Found a Bust >>>after more time. Hence the reason it didn't play the so Called Better Move that >>>you found with you're PC. >> >> >>agreed... > > > I don't think those kind of people will post here, there simply is not any >profit in it. Computer chess for me and you is a Hobby, for them it's all about >money. It is not the reason Part of the top chess programmers post here and it is clear that for them computer chess is about money. The reason is simply that Deeper blue needs to play in order to convince people that they are better than the top programs of today. Bobby Fisher can say that he is the best player in the world but he is not going to convince people without playing. The same for Deeper blue. It is impossible to compare based on results against humans when the results are not from the same time because humans learned to play against computers and playing against unknown thing like deeper blue in 1997 is not the same as playing against known programs. Humans also learned to play better from experience against computers and I am not talking about anti-computer chess. Kasparov admitted that he learned to play better from computers and if they help kasparov then I am sure that they can help part of the other top players. It is known that some of the novelties in the opening were discovered by computers and I also believe that computers can help top players to be better in tactics. When a program discovers a tactical idea that GM's did not think about the GM's can learn from it and find similiar idea in a different position. Uri
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.