Author: stuart taylor
Date: 01:57:20 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 03:56:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 19, 2002 at 02:22:29, David Dory wrote: > >>Sorry Vincent, et. al., your arguments are persuasive - but not enough. >> >>Everyone agrees that DB2 hardware is still untouchable, today. And the hardware >>was at least half of DB. >> >>Until and unless a program can (as did DB2), knock off the human chess champ, >>you're just spitting into the wind, guy. >> >>I'm very fresh out of time machines for comparisons of Lasker, McEnroe, Fischer, >>etc.. In my opinion, you could have saved all those key strokes. Interesting >>ideas? Sure, so is science fiction. >> >>Serving as a conduit to logical fact? >> >>Not hardly! >> >>NO computer program can claim to be better than DB2 (which remember is both >>hardware and software), until and unless it beats someone of Kasparov's caliber. > >By the same logic DB2 cannot claim to be the best combination of hardware and >software before winning wccc. > >Deep thought won a lot of computer tournaments but in 1995 it lost and Fritz3 >became the world champion. > >I count only the last comp-comp tournament that deeper blue played for the same >reason that you count only the last match of deeper blue against kasparov. > >> >>No time machine, wooden rackets, analysis of Deep Thought games, etc., required. >> >>Either they whoop the human chess champion, or they should shut up about being >>better than DB2. Put up or shut up. >> >>Simple as that. >> >>David > >You assume that the level of the world champion is the same. >I assume that kasparov learned and he is today better player relative to 1997 >and I believe that he can also beat deep blue today. > >Uri To add to that, I want to point out that the main opinion of members here has been that it needs a few hundred games to prove anything. So for that reson alone, having beat Kasparov in their 6-game match is a joke to say because of that that DB could even compare in any way, to Kasparov. Although, It's probably enough to stastically prove that Kasparov isn't more than 500 ELO points above that DB (of 1997). S.Taylor
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.