Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:05:32 01/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2003 at 03:43:46, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >On January 11, 2003 at 14:32:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Any software program of today outsearches positional Deep Blue of course, >>this is clearly the case. >> >>also we both know that in 1997 programs knew shit from endgames nor middlegame. >>That's quite some difference now. In 1997 i remember that beancounters (and DB >>was a very good beancounter for its time) did pretty well. > >As I was trying to say: We know a lot, we speculate a lot, but there is only one >method to find out if Deep Blue is worse than the current programs: They have to >play matches. > >In other words: I don't take words as facts. Only scores. > >Jeroem I'm not so sure. Of course I'm on your side in the argument with Vincent but matches alone might not be satisfying enough. Especially in short exhibition shows we have some factors that could be clouding our view. The same now in the Kasparov match if it really takes place. The shortness allows the operators to manipulate or, let's speak it out, - to gamble. As to prog vs prog matches I do fully support Bob's argument that 100x kills! I really would like to see the rejection of Vincent's crap about a 20-0 for today's progs. I'm almost sure that it would be 5-15 or even 1-19. All the tricky selective speculations would be dispersed into the atmosphere. But still I like dreamers. It's funny how Vincent is thinking that experience could create scientific reasoning. For the same delusion amateur chess players try over and over again to play their game of the century. A form of self-betrayal of course. Rolf Tueschen
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.