Author: Omid David
Date: 13:31:24 10/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2002 at 15:52:45, Chessfun wrote: >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. For "Human vs Machine" match you choose the strongest human player, not the best anti-computer player. Though Kasparov isn't known to be a good computer killer, he is definitely the best human chess player. > >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.