Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:48:41 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 08:13:38, emerson tan wrote: >On October 16, 2002 at 20:27:57, martin fierz wrote: > >>On October 16, 2002 at 17:57:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2002 at 17:53:25, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2002 at 16:43:53, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>I find it tasteless that Hsu claims that Deep Blue was in a 'different >>>>>class' from Fritz and that it was not match for them, when he has no >>>>>ability to back it up and the only public things we have about the two >>>>>show differently. >>>> >>>>How do they show differently? >>> >>>'very old' Fritz beat 'very old' Deep Blue >> >>...and in a shveshnikov book line at that which was in the fritz book and not in >>the DB book AFAIK. using one game alone as a proof is not a good idea. and if >>that game was decided by the better opening book, then it gets downright >>ridiculous. >> >>aloha >> martin >> >> >Kasparov wasalso beaten by deep Blues opening book in game six and kasparov loss >by a point. Thats one game up as proof also. Deep Blue team started claiming >victory. downright ridiculous also? I think that both games were lost not because of bad opening line. In the case of the game of deep blue prototype against Fritz3 the reason was clearly a tactical mistake. They have excuses for that tactical mistake but I do not care about it. I do not know how much time did deep blue use for c4 but time management is part of the program and they should expect the circumstances that happened. I do not know if it lost connection after failing low for some objective problem but even in that case it could remember the fail low and use more time. 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.