Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:53:22 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 17:40:48, Matthew Hull wrote: >On August 22, 2002 at 17:13:35, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 16:39:38, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2002 at 16:09:06, Chris Carson wrote: >>> >>>>On August 22, 2002 at 15:32:32, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 22, 2002 at 15:15:08, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 22, 2002 at 14:37:07, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 22, 2002 at 14:20:41, William H Rogers wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[snip] >>>>>>>>... That they beat the worlds champ in 2 out of 3 is on >>>>>>>>record, but that does not make them the worlds best. >>>>>>>>Bill >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It does if no other program has done it or can do it. I guess we'll soon know >>>>>>>the answer if the Fritz/Kramnik thing ever happens. >>>>>> >>>>>>Kramnik gets the machine before the match. >>>>>>The interesting match is kasparov-Junior and not Kramnik-Fritz. >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that you should learn statistics and 6 games are too little data to >>>>>>decide and stopping to play after these 6 games suggest that they know that they >>>>>>were lucky and they want to give the public the worng impression by not playing >>>>>>more games. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not fall for this trap. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Let's put it this way. They are the only one's to ever get that lucky. But for >>>>>some people, beating the World Champ in 6 games with a lot of skill and some >>>>>luck (maybe even a lot of luck) adds up to zero. I think it adds up to > zero. >>>>>Can you at least admit that? >>>> >>>>Results for DB and Commercials: >>>> >>>> >>>> ELO Opp >>>>DB97 2862 2795 +2 =3 -1 >>>> >>>>Tiger 2788 2497 +8 =3 -0 >>>>DJ6 2702 2792 +2 =5 -2 >>>>Rebel 2697 2697 +2 =0 -2 >>>>DF6 2678 2545 +6 =4 -2 >>>> >>>>DB96 2642 2775 +1 =2 -3 >>>> >>>>Based on results, the top commercial programs are equal to DB today. >>>>The 2700 GM that Rebel tied with played 100 preparation games, GM Kasparov vs DB >>>>had none. >>> >>>How many preparation games did Andersson get before playing Morphy? Does anyone >>>dispute the fact that Morphy beat Andersson? Are there endless debates about >>>who was _really_ the stronger player? >> >>He played no preperation games against a copy of the opponent >>when the opponent does not know about it and this is the point. >> >>> >>>Was Fischer really stronger than Spassky? He only just barely beat him. He >>>probably would have lost if he hadn't made such a rediculous fuss and disrupted >>>the match. And he was too chicken to play Karpov. But I don't see you or >>>anybody else sticking up for Spassky or Karpov. >> >>Fisher played a lot of games. >>He beated some players 6-0. >> >>Fisher was better than spassky also based on public games >>against other players. >> >>It was not the case with deeper blue because it played no >>public games against other players. >> >>>>The commercial programs can be played by anyone. DB was only played >>>>by a select few team members and a few games later by DBjr. The commercial >>>>programs are the best today and results as good as DB and over more games. DB >>>>is a dead horse. >>> >>>According to the laws of arithmetic, 2862 is still greater than 2788. And it >>>was achieved against _THE_ WORLD CHAMPION. None of the others can boast that. >> >>Humans could not get experience against something similiar to the thing >>and the situation today is different. >> >>Uri > >From what I've read in these threads, especially the contributions from Dr. >Hyatt and his knowlege and conversations with the team members, it seems that >the DB2 team was caught off guard by their victory. They were expecting maybe >at best a draw and at worst, some well fought losses. They were expecting to do >one more improvement iteration. > >But when they won, IBM management stepped in and shut down the project and >reaped the marketing rewards. > >Well, give them a break then. Yeah, the logs weren't available, the re-match >didn't happen. Just a lot of stuff they hadn't planned for happened and didn't >happen. > >From the outside, I guess their behavior looked strange, rude, unaccountable. >But if you think about it (especially if you've ever worked in a >mega-corporation), it makes perfect sense. > >Why people can't see this is beyond me. Why do we need to hear you guys >discredit their work, belittle their playing strength, and pooh pooh their >victory? What is there to be learned from such stuff? > >All the other DT/DB machines were the best. DB2 was surely that and much more. > >Why is that so hard to accept? > >You will say "I analyzed the games. They didn't impress me". Yet they were >good enough to rattle and _defeat_ THE WORLD CHAMPION. > >Even THE WORLD CHAMPION HIMSELF was impressed with at least _one_ move. > >I'd bet GNUChess running on a 10ghz processor could beat today's commercials on >their 2ghz machines. Surely, DB2 would have an even greater speed advantage. I'd bet that GNUchess on 10gh cannot beat the commercial with 2Gh except maybe blitz and I doubt if it even can do it in blitz. Gnuchess even lost against my movei in a match of peter berger on equal hardware and movei is not close to the top programs. It is weaker than them in tactics and it has almost no knowledge in it's evaluation. Uri
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.