Author: Sandi Ordinario
Date: 09:47:44 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 04:57:20, stuart taylor wrote: >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 On the otherhand there is also the "age" factor to be considered with Kasparov and the programming advances as far as chess software is concerned. I think winning over Junior7 or Fritz7 does not mean a thing but Kasparov winning over Deep Blue 2 in their second (or is it third now?) may mean that Kasparov has indeed become better much like aged wine does. Sandi
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.