Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:44:17 08/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 15:27:44, José Carlos wrote: The thing is: deep blue can't train at all. It's a hardware chip. Incompatible hardware design which only works for that 0.60. It's not even Verilog. So obviously my comparision was very good! >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 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.