Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:22:39 10/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 08:34:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: It is not valid that they created an awful machine. They didn't play any computerchess world championship nor did they join any other computer chess events where the european programs could measure themselves with deep blue. After 1995 they quit facing european programs. All we know is a few horrible games from both deep blue and kasparov. It is not trivial that deep blue 1997 could show better play than the poor level in these games. It is for sure that kasparov is the person to blame of course. he was not only an idiot, he was also bad for chess. Where the 4-4 from kramnik is a sad reality, he will be able to possibly face other programs again. Kasparov will play junior. Perhaps kasparov has LEARNED a bit more than kramnik has. If you lose once from the thing, then only when you are world champion you can play it again. But for sure is that fritz exists as software and you can buy it and play it, and it joins tournaments too usual. that's not the case with deep blue. We just know it sucked ass, based upon its play. Kasparov sucked even more of course, but he always got away with poor chess against programs. In fact it is realistic that he didn't care for getting 2.5-2.5, just game 6 IMHO he was imagining deep blue to be so bad, like 1980 software, that he thought he coudl get back to a draw or something, after playing horrible blunders like b5. We do not know. All we know is that humans when playing computers do not show very good play. Look to kramnik. he plays the first 4 games like he plays rapid games. He gets 3-1 then (lucky machine) and the rest of the games he doesn't care simply. But still 4-4 is acceptible from historic viewpoint. What we do know is that kasparov has on average played 1-1 against deep blue. First match easy win 4-2, second match by some poor games a loss 3.5-2.5 Then IBM stopped. Wise decision. AFter so much marketing that deep blue has solved chess even, they had to quit of course. Or they would look stupid in 1998. >Bob >Feng DO mention problems with the program by Thomas. If they were enough to >speak of "full of.." or not it is a matter of tastes in the writting style. My >impression was and still is that the author did have many problems and even so >they created an awful machine. Of course this does not means the software >problem were more or worst than the hardware problems. >Anyway the core of my mressions is the first: DP could have been absolutely >untouchable if worked one year more. > > >My best >Fernando
This page took 0.02 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.