Author: Hristo
Date: 14:16:35 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 15:19:37, Marc van Hal wrote: >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 dang ... :-( Sorry to hear that! I missunderstud you. hristo >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.