Author: Kip Carvalho
Date: 01:27:23 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 16:39:00, Scott Gasch wrote: >On October 09, 2002 at 15:52:28, George Sobala wrote: > >>On October 09, 2002 at 15:49:41, liam hearns wrote: >> >>>well is to be , Kramnick the destroyer,Kramnick the spoil sport,Kramnick the >>>fox,or simply Kramnick the great? He is proving one thing and that is without >>>its enormous database of book knowledge chess computers have not improved much >>>over the years.Is it back to the drawing board chaps? >> >>Actually I foresee problems. A human opponent trailing by so much at this stage >>would be demoralised, and play below his usual strength. Fritz has no such >>psychological problems: if Kramnik "eases up" in the next game feeling it is >>getting too easy, he may get a nasty tactical surprise along the way. > >Here's my take on all of this, for what it's worth. Kramnik will have no >problem finishing off Fritz -- Fritz has neither the knowledge nor the raw speed >to compete with super GMs and this is the reason it loses. Add to this the fact >the Kramnik was able to prepare by playing practice games vs. Fritz and finding >out what the engine does well / badly and you have the machine at a grave >disadvantage. > >Deep Blue was a much faster searcher and may or may not have had more evaluation >knowledge. In my opinion the win over Kasparov was a fluke caused by a few >factors: 1. poor play by GK (in game 2 he resigns a drawn position, in game 6 he >bungles the opening), 2. lack of oppertunity for Kasparov to prepare -- he has >no idea what to expect. This was a competition between man vs machine. The thought was, as many have asserted, man is better than machine due to various reasons. So why would Kasparov need practice if he is trully superior. I think the answer is obvious. The machine is achieving levels that GMs have written books in the early 90s indicating that a machine could never beat a GM. So lack of opportunity is really irrelevant here. Was Deep Blue an impressive machine and great >achievement? Yes. Could it have consistently beaten the super GMs at slow >games? I do not think so. And if neither can anything we have today. > >Scott
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.