Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:41:58 08/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 11:31:54, Chris Taylor wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 09:06:02, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >> Kasparov proved that he can defeat programs at fast time controls when he >>defeated Deep Thought in a game/90 two games match in 1989. This program was >>weaker than Deep Junior is today, as it searched well over 2,000,000 NPS, but >>didn't have as much chess knowledge as Deep Junior. He also defeated Deep Blue >>in 1996. This program is obviously much faster than Deep Junior is today, but in >>my opinion Deep Junior still has more chess knowledge than Deep Blue had back in >>1996. >> >>PS: It is hard to compare Deep Blue of 1997 vs Deep Junior of today, but in my >>opinion Deep Junior Chess Knowledge could make up for the difference of Deep >>Blue super calculating power of 1997. >> >>Pichard. > >One way would be to play some games with Deep Blue and Deep Junior. Guess that >would settle once and for all who is the strongest. Or would it just pour fuel >on the **whos** best fire. Put together the blue box and match it up. After >all it did beat the best player in the world at that time! The advert could be >quite powerful. The machine that beat Kaspy goes for Junior. Methinks there >could be some money to be made here? So this may not happen, shame? that will of course never happen. Just like fischer still is world champion, deep blue will be world champion in some scientist eyes forever too. To be clear. I feel that any 2650+ player of todaywill wipe out fischer if he plays like he played in 1970. New theory, better tactics, more insight in strategies, better training. A 2650 player of today is going to crush any world champ from before Karpov of course. No doubts. Robert J Fischer when the rating list started had 2780 or something. that was superb compared to anyone in those days. He was the best back then. No one was as good. But the level has improved a lot. Many will say now: "this is not a fair compare a modern 2650 player against someone who had only an old book from capablanca and tarrasch, if he could read german anyway". In fact a grandmaster did this comparision. He compared a top tournament in 1991 with a top tournament from 1920. The grandmaster was called Nunn if i remember well. The last few players in that tournament around the start of the 20th century, they simply blundered away piece after piece. Would be rated at most 1500 nowadays. The 'better players' in the tournament, considered *clear world top* back then, they blundered on average 5 times a game. *no modern topgrandmaster is doing that*. The level of the world top increases. This is logical. Suppose you get to the tennis court with a wooden racket. Even if you're called John McEnroe you will be of course get completely annihilated. A wooden racket and services of 160KM/hour (the speed at which McEnroe served) it is no compare to the 180-220 KM/hour services of modern tennis of today. He won't manage a single break of course. This is logical. Sport progresses. computerchess even faster. saynig that deep blue/deep thought was good in its days is justified. It beated some GMs. That the GMs played big shit games because they cared shit as they had nothing to proof and would get money anyway, that's no issue here. The issue is that it is so *obvious* that software in 2002 is much better than in 1997 that i am amazed that only Hyatt here doubts it. >Chris
This page took 0.03 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.