Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:15:01 10/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2002 at 11:00:42, Jeremiah Penery wrote: We can very objectively show major positional blunders in the lines and moves played by deep blue. We can also show many in Fritz, but way less than in deep blue. That is a very objective way to measure. Of course it requires a bit more chessknowledge from the judge than basic chess knowledge. We can ask some well known objective chess commentators. Eric Schiller for example, national chess coach in USA and well known for his many good books. I have another list for you of players i can ask and show you. Most GMs however are so bored within 2 minutes of th eplay of deep blue and its mainlines they find so bad, that they don't want to spend time on the nonsense. Fritz is not much better in that respect, but if we compare it to deep blue it's like God of course. Well tested, searching deeper, and an openings book 100 times bigger than deep blue's (the manual given in mainlines). >On October 20, 2002 at 03:41:56, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 19, 2002 at 21:44:49, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>I have just finished the book by Feng-Hsiung Hsu. In just a shot, from after >>>lunch to this time, meal time. Very interesting. You cannot stop he reading. >>>First big impression: if this guy and his team had worked just one year more on >>>Deep Blue, Garry has been crushed to ashes, to atoms. Yes, because once and >>>again Deep Blue appears as an uncomplete device full of bugs and problems, >> >> >>I am surprised that after this people still believe that it's evaluation was >>better than the evaluation of Deep Fritz of today. > >I'm surprised people still think it's evaluation was worse than Fritz of today. >But it doesn't matter - I think DB will never play again (stupid IBM), so >neither side can EVER win the argument.
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.