Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:52:50 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 18:39:34, martin fierz wrote: >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 > So you don't think a top-10 GM makes 5 blunders in a game? I'll bite. First, how to define "blunder"? Major positional error? Dropping a pawn? Failing to win a pawn? Winning a pawn when he could win 2 or 3? failing to find a mate although the move played still wins? I don't think even players of Fischer's time made 5 horrible blunders in a game very often. Again, I watched many and used Blitz/Cray Blitz to analyze some of them. I saw them make errors. I see players today make errors. I don't think there is a lot of difference, at the top, in terms of mistakes made per game... >> >> >> >>> 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 0.04 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.