Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 03:48:57 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 02:48:48, Hristo wrote: >1. Fritz _is_ better than Deep Blue, because Deep Blue doesn't exist any more!? >This alone can be enough to clame that Fritz is better. Well... At least it makes "proving" anything one way or the other rather difficult. >2. There is no evidence, that I know of, that shows a direct comparison of the >playing strength of these beasts. Which leaves the whole topic open for >speculations ... Yep. >3. Kramnik applies the best possible method to determine which of the two >programs (machines) is stronger. He evaluates the actuall chess moves that are >proposed or made over the course of a game. As pointed out by Hyatt, finding x moves where today's software outperforms Deep Blue doesn't prove anything beyond sustaining a conjecture without proving its correctness. It's the only way to compare, but not a substitute for actual games. >For all intense and purposes Kramnik is correct. Maybe, maybe not. It's a conjecture. Regards, Mogens
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.