Author: Chessfun
Date: 12:52:45 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 15:37:16, Omid David wrote: >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. Based on human v human play, his record in human v comp isn't quite so impressive. Sarah. > >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 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.