Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:45:43 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 08:31:04, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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". The best programs 30 years ago did not win or drew against the best humans. > > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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? I do not think that kasparov is strong enough to get 100% against the top programs of today. > > >> >>> >>>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. My opinion is not based on what somebody else but on the fact that I found nothing impressive in the games of deeper blue against kasparov(I found no tactical trap that deeper blue avoided and I found no impressive positional move of deeper blue). I found in few positions cases when my deep Fritz needed similiar time to find the same lines of deeper blue or lines that lead to the same position(in most positions that I analyzed the lines are different and I did not analyze most of the positions from the games). My impression (based on the games and the logfiles of deeper blue) is that deeper blue was at similiar level to Deep Fritz on hardware that is less than twice faster than my P850 and it means weaker than latest Fritz or latest Junior on better hardware. Uri > > >> >> >> 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 I think that kasparov is one of the best and in order to know who is the best there should be sweningen tournament between humans and computers when the winner of humans can play the winner of computers for a match. Uri
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.