Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:24:18 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 18, 2002 at 23:39:45, martin fierz wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 22:30:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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*., >> >>That is absurd. I have watched hundreds of GM games as they were relayed >>on ICC from various super-GM events around the world. I have seen "top >>GM players" overlook a mate in 2, hang pieces, you-name-it. > >nope, it is not absurd. the top GM players hang pieces in time trouble mostly, >and you can't blame them for that. Sorry, but it _is_ absurd. I watched Topolov miss a mate in 2 and have to give up a queen. He only had 75 minutes left on his clock and had thought for about 10 minutes prior to making the error. Other examples include Kasparov resigning in a drawn position, with _plenty_ of time left on his clock. It happens _every_ tournament. > vincent is talking about john nunn's >excellent book on tactics, "john nunn's chess puzzles" (or something very >similar to that). he compares two tournaments, karlsbad 19-little and the biel >interzonal of about 1990. he used fritz in blundercheck mode to get some kind of >objective measure of the number of errors being commited in the two tournaments, >and the result was that 1920 they were playing abominable chess. some of the >players in these top tournaments would lose against mediocre players as vincent >and me! the section is called "the test of time", highly recommended. these >blunders there are of a totally different kind too - errors that GMs of today >would simply not make; not tactical errors but moves which any kid knows he >shouldnt play. read the book if you don't believe it or want a better >explanation :-) > >if anything is absurd in vincent's post, it is the claim that fischer would be >wiped out by a 2650 player. i won't dwell on this, because the combination of >"fischer" and "would have" is detrimental to any discussion... > >aloha > martin > >>>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. >> >> >> >>That is a poor analogy. In chess, the material the pieces and board is >>made of has _nothing_ to do with the game. Unlike Tennis and the raquet >>you mentioned... I remain unconvinced that the GMs of today have _any_ >>advantage over GMs of days gone by, except perhaps better opening theory. >>But then transplant a GM of the past to today and he would know that stuff >>as well... >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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 0.01 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.