Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:53:26 10/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2002 at 18:24:44, martin fierz wrote: >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. I was talking about anti-computer more than anything else. His first four openings were tame and nearly perfect for playing against a computer. Then he got more aggressive and left his original plan, it seems... > > >>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. My point was that in the Kasparov vs Deep Blue match, Kasparov resigned in a game that he thought was lost. But which deep analysis showed was drawn. Kramnik resigned a game that was probably drawn, although it has not been subjected to the same analysis as the DB/GK game. But the similarity is there, he resigned _too early_. In the last game Kasparov made what most considered to be a blunder with h6. Kramnik _clearly_ blundered a piece and turned a probable draw into a sure loss with one move that takes most programs a few milliseconds to spot as losing. Yet Kasparov was routinely criticized as playing like a 2000 player, yet Kramnik has not gotten any such comments. Everything is the _same_ except for the opponents. One was the hated Deep Blue from IBM, the other is a popular micro program... :) > >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... I concsider that to be a strategic blunder, if not a tactical blunder. But that only highlights the issue here. Kramnik actually played much worse overall than Kasparov did, but was still able to draw the match. I think the first four games were more revealing to me, personally. The last 4 games seemed to be twilight-zone stuff... > >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... I certainly agree. Kramnik made more bad moves than Kasparov, yet he didn't lose the match. That says something... > >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 0.02 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.