Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:06:56 02/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 21:39:02, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On February 20, 2003 at 18:19:40, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On February 20, 2003 at 17:42:53, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >> >>> >>>http://www.chessclub.com/event/kasparov-junior.html >> >> >>Just one topic: It is awful to read a GM telling that DJ is better than DB2, >>also positionally. It is strange. DB2 played nothing the like DJ played when it >>had to lose by force so to speak. >> >>Excuse me, this is all so strange to read that I lost hope to get anything >>rational from the DJ side. This is extremely sad because I always saw Amir on >>the side of critical science, since he analysed the output of DB2 for Kasparov. > >I wonder why you have ever thought that. He has said since 1997 that Junior >(and other programs) were better than DB2, even when it is very clear that they >were not better. Even today, several generations of hardware and software >later, that statement can't be made with any kind of certainty. His judgment in >this matter is clouded by far too much bias for his own program to be objective. Following you science shouldn't be possible, I mean we all have our preferences, but we also don't want to make us look like clowns in public. I know what you mean. Also Ed Schröder assisted him. But already then I knew that they had a basic difficulty they couldn't understand. And that is the point that all this "proving" certain moves with odd commercial progs could NOT prove equality with DB2. That is also science. Because it's old news that a prog can be tuned for a special move. But was it chosen for the right reasons? And that is only one single possible objection. Rolf Tueschen 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.