Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:24:44 10/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 13:12:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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"??? not that i want to take sides in any debate involving deep blue, but: kramnik resigned a drawn game, true, but it was very hard to spot. and i don't know where he "blew openings" - not even one. >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. kramnik made exactly ONE trivial-to-spot blunder, Qc4??. the position was not a dead draw without that blunder. i think it's a draw, but if kramnik had been 100% sure that this was in fact a dead draw, he could have gone into this ending by force - and he didnt, which tells us something about what kramnik thought about this ending - that it was not *dead* drawn. Nxf7 turned out to be a mistake too, but much more in the sense that you should not play this way against computers, and specially not when you are leading with +1. in a chess sense, it is very far from "trivial to spot"... as it turns out, Nxf7 was a ?? for kramnik for the rest of the match - he couldnt recover after game 6... judging from the games, DF certainly didn't seem to be "much better than DB", which at least didnt produce such ridiculous moves as DF did :-) which is not to say that DB would not have been capable of playing such moves too... aloha martin >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 0.03 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.