Author: José Carlos
Date: 12:27:44 08/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 12:41:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 Couldn't disagree more. Give Capablanca or Lasker a couple of months to train against today's GM's and they'll do quite well. Talented players learn fast, Vincent. It's not like programs. A program is "closed", it can't modify itself. A player such as Lasker would be able to catch up in very little time. As for tennis, a fair comparison would be give McEnroe a new racket and see how long does he need to get used to it. Otherwise it's not a fair comparison. Lasker brain would not be obsolete today. His knowledge would be, but knowledge can be learnt. José C.
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.