Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 12:19:37 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 10:36:20, Hristo wrote: >On April 10, 2002 at 10:08:24, Marc van Hal wrote: > >>On April 10, 2002 at 02:48:48, Hristo wrote: >> >>>On April 10, 2002 at 01:24:55, Joshua Lee wrote: >>> >>>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=255 >>>> >>>>Kramnik may not know anything about programming but when he says Fritz was >>>>suggesting objectively better moves than Deep Blue Played.....For someone of his >>>>level of play to say such a thing. DB might have had extra knowledge than fritz >>>>or any other program doesn't who really knows.....there is not enough >>>>disclosure. Still i would like to see if anyone has found a position from either >>>>match inwhich DB played a move that is out of Commercials grasp. >>>> >>>>I am pretty sure this is like the thousandth message that asks this question. >>> >>>Yes, other people have talked about this. >>>Kramnik, might, have more than one reason to say that "Fritz" is better than >>>Deep Blue. Some reasons, that we can think of, are better than others. As to the >>>_truth_ ... well, here is the rub, horacio! >>> >>>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. >>> >>>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 ... >>> >>>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. Most geeks, including me, get, >>>often, stuck on other issues that relate to eval-speed, hash-hits, tb-hits, etc. >>>... an we often lose the main criteria to determine the strength of a chess >>>program. Nobody here, on this forum, would be able to sustain a direct assault >>>in a regulation game against any of the top chess software. Kramnik can and >>>will! When talking about chess Kramnik (and the like) can prove what thay talk >>>about, the rest of us should sit back and take lessoons. :-) >>> >>>For all intense and purposes Kramnik is correct. >>> >>>Don't be so surprised. In another 5 years your PDA will be better chess player >>>than Deep Blue ever was. :-) >>> >>>Regards, >>>hristo >> >> >>I think their might be a might good chance that Fritz indeed is stronger then >>Deep Bleu > >There is a chance of this being true. We will never know for sure! > >>If Deep Bleu's posetional knowledge was so great then explain game nr1 >>I also think that Deep Bleu's mobilety was much to low >>Also if it had much more positional understanding it would have been able to >>bring big disasters on the board (based on Kingafety)which never happened in the >>match. > >Deep Blue made mistakes. Enough mistakes to put doubt in my mind as to its >absolute strength. However, over the table (board), it performed rather well. > >>So my findings over the program Hardware fine >>Software bad. > >AFAIK the _software_ was the hardware ... the IBM computer was something like a >shell inside which they mounted another, completely different, computer system. > >>Not to mention that Kasparov did not have prepared himself for that match >> > >True .. and tough-shit ... he got money for it and a brused ego. > >>The chance is big that Kramnik even can't win from most of today's programs on a >>200Mhz computer without preparetion > >hmmm ... this is not likely. Most games I have seen lately are played with >computers running at well over 1GHz and the results are not devastating enough >to indicate the 200 MHz would be stronger than Kramnik. > >>and this preparetion actualy is cheating like I mentioned before. > >I disagree. ;-) >Both sides have accepted these conditions so it couldn't be called cheating. (If Fritz could talk would he agree on this?) > >>They could overcome this problem by sending some won games from Fritz7 >>To show it's style >>Rather by first bring it out (So games can be colected.) >> giving Mr Kramnik the program >>And then start the match. >> >>Fritz also never can start with a suprising move like a human can >>Like Boby Fischer played 1.b4 > >Nor can Fritz start speaking russian in the middle of the game, like Fischer did >with Petrosian (I think). Nor can Fritz complain about the lights, the chair, >the camera noise, ... ;-) > >>Not because he thought it was good but because of the suprise. >>Leaving the oponent unprepared. >>Today this move is searched out much more then today but it only is an example. >> >>Then again if I never would have analyesed theory and put it public we would not >>even discus this now. >>(At least Boris Alterman did take use of it which can't be said about this forum >>Who did deleted most of my important analyses. >>For some small fees. >>Which actualy means Chessbase and New and chess do not have copyrights over some >>of their products,like they caim >> >>(In fact it is ripped Warez hehe)Hey I didn't knew you can copyright that too) >>So I am also to blaim. > >You are a thief ... like me, because I let people in the office listen to my CDs >without sending money to the record company. :-)))) > >Regards, >hristo. Caim was ment to be claim I am not a thief I am the original author for crying out loud. And chessbase and New in Chess ripped the original analyses many important info is left out So it now still is fishy for a GM,or a chessprogram. Not to mention about the lower rated players. But I am too blaim like the man who created the atomic bomb by sharing the knowledge. Which is used to defeat the silicon genius. But I created it for the theoretical importance! >> >>Regards Marc
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.