Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:23:53 07/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2002 at 05:24:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 17, 2002 at 00:03:24, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >> >>In game 2, Kasparov thought that there was human interference with this line. >>He requested the logs to see for himself that these two moves were actually in >>the Deep Blue eval. >>Kasparov did not think any program would play 36.axb5 avoiding 36.Qb6 or the >>move 37.Be4. >> >>But it seems that todays programs will accomplish what Deep Blue was trying to >>do in the game. >>Deep Blue opened up the a file and blocked Kasparov's play with 37.Be4, limiting >>blacks mobility. >> >>Below in the examples you will see that two of todays strongest programs will >>also accomplish this same objective. Both Fritz7 and Chess Tiger 14.0 will open >>the a file and control the a file. also both Fritz7 and Chess Tiger 14.0 will >>play Be4 limiting Kasparov's mobility with black. >> >>All three programs, Deep Blue, Chess Tiger 14.0 and Fritz7 put the >>squeeze on black, blocked with the Be4 move, opened the a file, threatened to >>capture blacks bishop, forced black to protect the loss of pawns, etc. >> >>I started each program after Kasparov's move 35...Bxd6. >>after each program analyzed for several hours, I took the line from each >>program and played it through to the position after blacks move 40. >>This way we can cover both controversial moves> >> > >What is the error in such experiments? > >Answer: You can't _prove_ something as authentic with repetitions on different >machines built-up _after_ the event. History of CC has shown that we could never >exclude special preps right on to the point. Therefore, logically, we cannot >accept such "proofs". You _can_ disprove Kasparov's main "claim". That "no computer would play ..." By demonstrating that at _least_ one computer _would_ play that move, his statement is disproven for all time. And the rest of his claim can therefore be taken with a mountain of salt. > >The deconstruction of DEEP BLUE 2 right after the event, in special with the >knowledge of the prior attitude of the DB team, which was one of secrecy (not a >single game score existing!), speaks against the validity of DB2 output. > >THe deliberate deconstruction invalidates DB2 results. Just compare it with the >refusal of passing the doping test directly _after_ the race. > >It's so basic! > >Rolf Tueschen
This page took 0.01 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.