Author: Omid David
Date: 12:37:16 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 14:52:12, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On October 08, 2002 at 13:41:34, Omid David wrote: > >>On October 08, 2002 at 13:19:55, Knut Bjørnar Wålberg wrote: >> >>>On October 08, 2002 at 13:09:11, Omid David wrote: >>> >>>>On October 08, 2002 at 12:38:34, Knut Bjørnar Wålberg wrote: >>>> >>>>>If Kramnik mops the floor with Deep Fritz, a rather odd situation might arise: >>>>>What will most strengthen the belief that the top human(s) is in fact better >>>>>than any machine/program ever created? >>>>> >>>>>That Kasparov later crushes Deep Junior, or that he loses? >>>>> >>>>>If Kasparov wins without problems, it could be argued that the Chessbase >>>>>products are clearly not up to the standard of Deep Blue. However, if Kasparov >>>>>loses, then DF and DJ should at least be on par with DB2, and therefore Kramnik >>>>>is even stronger, and it's just Kasparov that doesn't know how to play >>>>>computers. >>>>> >>>>>I know there are other factors that come into play (especially the way the >>>>>players were able to prepare), but how do you all think the world in general >>>>>will perceive these different scenarios? What is the ideal score in the two >>>>>matches when it comes to creating interest in chess and computer chess? >>>>> >>>>>As a final note, it seems to me that Deep Blue might end up as a sort of Bobby >>>>>Fischer of computer chess; Perceived by many as the greatest ever, a statement >>>>>that one can neither prove nor disprove at the moment. Any comments on that? ;) >>>>> >>>>>Knut Bjørnar Wålberg >>>> >>>>Arguing against Junior or Fritz, saying Deep Blue was better, is ridiculous. >>>>It's exactly like saying Fischer is better than Kasparov or Kramnik. Deep Blue >>>>was the strongest at its time, so was Fischer at his time, they both retired, >>>>and so they're both irrelevant. >>>> >>> >>>I agree, but will the public see it the same way? After all, IBM managed to >>>create publicity far beyond the chess / computer world with their machine, and >>>most people don't know about IBM's cynical acts. In order to remove all doubt, >>>it might be best if Kasparov loses again. >>> >> >>If Kasparov loses, I will personally argue: "Kramnik's win doesn't count since >>he already had the very exact program; and also, Fritz wasn't the best program >>in the world as the last two years' world computer chess championships clearly >>indicate. But Junior (the strongest computer program) won Kasparov (the >>strongest human player) and that shows that computers are superior" > >Junior lost to Fritz and Kasparov to Kramnik. >Kasparov vs. Junior is for the bronze medal. Junior has won this year's WCCC and last year's WMCCC, with Fritz being a participant in both these tournaments. Junior has proved itself to be the strongest program in the past two years, not losing even one single game to a human. Kasparov continues to be the highest rated chess player, and as his last year's results show, he is far stronger than Kramnik. So while this "Brains in Bahrain" thing is just a mere joke, the Jerusalem event will be the true rematch of "Human vs Machine", when the strongest program and the strongest human will meet. > >Miguel
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.