Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:12:37 10/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 10:22:39, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. So kasparov made _one_ big mistake in resigning a drawn position, and mixing up an opening (if that is really what happened) sequence of moves, and he is an idiot. Kramnik resigned a drawn game, and blew a couple of openings, and he is "ok"??? Somehow your "logic" totally escapes me... Fritz couldn't beat Kramnik in the match even after he made at _least_ one trivial-to-spot blunder that turned a dead draw into a dead loss a piece down. While Deep Blue _did_ beat Kasparov in a match where both made mistakes. And Fritz is much better than deep blue? Somehow, again, your "logic" totally escapes me... In fact, your "logic" is really just a form of envy/agenda, IMHO... > >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.