Author: Hristo
Date: 05:58:36 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 06:48:57, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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. it certainly does! ;-) > >>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. > What is that supposed to mean? The entire "conjecture" that DB is faster and therefore a lot better than the rest of the COMPS is somehow not convincing. If nothing else the following problem arises ... Lets use ELO points as the relative chess strength for COMPS. If 2*nps = +100 ELO points. The modern computer, at 1M nps, are 200 times slower than DB. DB performed, during the match with Kasparov, at ELO 2900. (not sure about that) Can we acertain that the relative strength of the computers today is between 2000-2200 ELO points? If, at the same time, we accept that the eval used by DB was superior to all modern COMPS, then the relative strength of the modern computers should be even lower. Is this correct? Anyway, the information is so scarce and inconclusive that making any conjectures based on this information is dubious and fraudulent. Dr. Hyatt desrves a lot(!) of recognition, but when it comes to chess (the game) I would rather listen to Kramnik. Thank you. hristo >>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.