Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:39:34 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 11:24:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. of course it happens. but if you read vincent's statement, he is saying "blundered on average 5 times in one game". your examples are both *one* big mistake in a game. not 5 mistakes in every game they play in a tournament! read that book - it's really interesting. aloha martin > > > >> 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.