Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 03:15:35 04/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2002 at 00:11:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 11, 2002 at 14:34:20, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On April 11, 2002 at 09:39:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 11, 2002 at 05:37:15, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On April 11, 2002 at 04:46:01, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 10, 2002 at 17:57:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 10, 2002 at 17:28:34, Amir Ban 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He was stating the obvious. Fritz6 and Junior6 were already stronger than DB, >>>>>>>and I said so at the time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Amir >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Obvious to _whom_??? >>>>>> >>>>>>not anyone in "reality" I don't think... >>>>>> >>>>>>Or did I miss where Fritz6 and Junior6 beat kasparov in a 6 game match at >>>>>>40/2??? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Bob, take some good advice, you are going to lose this one. I agree, much has to >>>>>do with wishful thinking, you can't fight that :) >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>>Ed or others, how do you explain Bobs eloquent descriptions of the massive >>>>amount of knowledge, not at expense of calculation speed etc. which was put into >>>>DB? >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>>He doesn't and he wasn't trying to. Re-read what he wrote. He described >>>a "futile argument" problem. And note the ":)" which is important. :) >> >> >>Bob, you missed the point, the argument itself isn't futile at all. I think the >>majority (myself included) truly believes nowayds chess programs are clearly >>superior to DB-97. Since nobody can proof himself being right, the thing doesn't >>exist any longer, the wishful thinking starts. >> >>I consider you as the last of the Mohicans, when are you going to give up, 2010, >>2020, ever? >> >>Please smile, for a moment I feel back in the good old days of 1996 and I won't >>challenge you for another hysteric 1-100 game, I promise :) >> >>Ed > >I will "give up" when computers are capable of searching in the same speed range >as DB2 which is an average of 200M nodes per second. At such a point, DB's >tactical superiority will be in doubt due to recent results with null-move >and other forward pruning approaches. By the time computers can search 200M >nps, the evaluations will also be significantly more refined than they are today >erasing that DB2 advantage as well... > >2010 is probably an upper bound... maybe 2007 (10 years after DB2 played). I am sure I can wait till 2007 you saying that :) Notwithstanding all the DB bashing, the DB-97 event *is* the highlight in computer chess, I can't imagine a reason or another event that will change that. In 2278 nobody will remember Crafty an/or Rebel, but DB will be listed in the history books. Ed
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.