Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:31:04 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 07:58:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 30, 2003 at 07:00:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 29, 2003 at 22:30:38, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>Negative. He is paid because he is strong, _the_ strongest. That's what is >>>wanted. That is what is hired. His reputation is on the line. >> >> >>That is wrong and I can prove it. Kasparov is possibly the strongest human chess >>player _against_ other human players, although I doubt it because Kramnik is >>stronger, but this is not the question here. It's true that Kasparov is very >>strong against other human players in human chess. But he's not the strongest >>player against computers! Simply because his lack of self-control. Pulling faces >>is both impolite and against the known chess ethic. No matter how authentic it >>might be in the eyes of the spectators. And more - against computers it's >>_absolutely_ worthless! >> >>The sole reason for Kasparov being the most wanted partner in computer chess >>show events is the intention to make the public believe that the strongest human >>player is automatically the strongest computer opponent - which is provenly >>false! >> >> >> >> >>>His reputation >>>suffered badly from DB2. If he throws games, then he has dishonored his >>>contract, his principles, his reputation and his soul. That's just not >>>happening with this guy, IMO. >> >>I didn't say that he throws games. Keep your data straight, please. But it's >>true that all show event partners among human chess players have 'helped' the >>programs to win some points - from the beginning on of such show events. >> >>Here is a sentence nobody can deny: >> >>====If it's true that only now the commercially available chess programs are >>strong enough to win games against the best humans, then how could it happen >>that already 30 years ago the first programs and board computers won points?=== >> >>Please explain that fact! How could it happen if the human chessplayers didn't >>help? With strength alone that could never have happened because the first >>programs were stupid as hell. But again prove me wrong. I wait for your answers. > >strength. > >The first programs were not stupid. >They were simply weaker in tactics and in evaluation relative to today programs >because of hardware and software but strong enough to beat weak humans. Yes, weak humans. But I was talking about the losses or even draws of the best humans! This is what I call "helping", although >I wouldn't say "throwing". >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>IBM took a risk in hiring the strongest guy in the world to play their monster. >>>They gambled and won. You can bet he was not throwing games then. The >>>situation is the same. He has something to prove. >> >> >>What should he have to prove? We are not talking about human chess. We are >>talking about computerchess. And there he is definitely NOT the best opponent, >>perhaps the best partner - in economical terms of business, yes. > >The record of kasparov against computer is not so bad. > >He beated Deep Thought convincingly 2-0 when Deep thought caused problems to >other players and even karpov won against Deep thought only because of stupid >blunder of deep thought that today programs do not do. True, and that is not the point here, Uri. :) Don't change the topics. The point and major topic is why such a strong Kasparov could ever lose points agaist clearly weak machines? Any answer? > >> >>And a final sentence you can't deny too: >> >>===Why could Kasparov prove what he's worth in chess (computer version!) if he's >>now playing a program that is factor x plus a dozen aspects WEAKER than DB2? > >A big part of the chess world believe that kasparov is playing something that is >better than DB2. But NOT the real experts like Bob Hyatt. Many of those you rely on are members of the paid crowd in the show event. So forget it. > > > How >>could a little boy prove that he was stronger than me, if I hit him a bloody >>nose and he _then_ began to pester my little baby sister?=== > >If you do not do something to defend your sister then it suggest that you are >afraid from the boy and people may believe that the boy is also stronger than >you. I did and the boy is dead and I'm still here. (Fortunately I never had a sister. UNFORTUNATELY, Uri!) > >Deeper blue never competed again after the win against kasparov so I see no >reason to assume that it is obvious that it was stronger than Deep Junior. > >I also see no reason to take as fact the claim about the number of nodes per >second of deeper blue and I saw no evidence based on the games that deeper blue >was stronger(I know no move that programs of today need hours to find) > >Uri Is Kaspy the best computer opponent for you? :) 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.