Author: Hristo
Date: 14:44:19 11/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1998 at 17:21:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 10, 1998 at 14:27:38, Reynolds Takata wrote: > >>On November 10, 1998 at 14:19:04, Lanny DiBartolomeo wrote: >> >>>On November 10, 1998 at 10:29:12, Reynolds Takata wrote: >>> >>>>On November 10, 1998 at 03:47:08, odell hall wrote: >>>> No offense but i'm seriously doubting that those words have echoed in your >>>>ears, because Kasparov to my recollection said "if deepblue were to start >>>>playing TOURNAMENT chess, I personaly guarantee I will tear it to shreds". >>>>Would Kasparov tear it to shreds? Well who knows that's only conjecture. >>>>However, just as Kasparov may be drawing too big of conclusions from the >>>>match,you are as well. Especially considering the short nature of the match. >>>>Heck if Jan Timman had beaten Kasparov ina match or even Judit Polgar had beaten >>>>Polgar in a match, nobody and i mean nobody, would be claiming that either of >>>>those players were better than Kasparov. Another thing is that you are >>>>overlooking the POSSIBILITY of LUCK. I say this, because as a master i know >>>>that there is luck. An example, though i am only an average master, in the game >>>>that Kasparov resigned that was a draw. I saw the draw almost instantaneously, >>>>maybe a minute to check to make sure of it is all. As for everyone not seeing >>>>the move that's not true. In fact many players believed there was something. I >>>>wont forget I.M. Ashleys shock when it happened he says at the moment something >>>>to the effect "What? Kasparov is resigning?" In a very shocked voice. At that >>>>point many people just stopped examining the position. Further, 2 more of the >>>>games Kasparov was had winning positions(and blew) that most average GM's would >>>>have won, and also He was playing totally uncharacteristically falling for a >>>>cheap shot in the carokann. If he played anything like that previously he would >>>>have never become world champion. An example KK recently told you to put Hiarcs >>>>on "Aggressive style" as opposed to the default style. One of the styles is >>>>better or worse, and if it played a match with the worse style(possibly a worse >>>>book), you wouldn't say it reflected on the program, but rather on the settings. >>>> Kasparov played in a totally uncharacteristic style, and further played bad >>>>openings and still almost won the match(the score was very close)! And as for >>>>you mentioning deep blues flexibility, well i like computer chess too, but don't >>>>be fooled into thinking deep blue is a flexible as Kasparov. Top players, and >>>>Top computer experts almost all if they had to bet money would give kasparov an >>>>edge in another match ESPECIALLY if it was a longer match. Why do i say 6 games >>>>isn't enough? Well for one, NO world championship match has ever been that >>>>short! The reason that 6 games neither in the past or the present would have >>>>convinced anyone that a human player was the stronger than the current world >>>>champion of the time. So why would you all of a sudden make a claim that Deep >>>>Blue is stronger based on 6 games? Answer just as some people are biased >>>>towards humans you are obviously biased for computers. By this reasoning Anand >>>>should have been considered better than Kasparov after the first 9 GAMES of >>>>their world championship because Anand was in the lead! No one would make such >>>>a claim, because to have done so simply based on the 9 games would have been >>>>close to ridiculous. >>> >>>Hi, I don't think if a person was to imply this it would be close to ridiculous. >>> If im playing a person and after 9 games there up with me or slightly ahead >>>of me, I am under the impression that they're going to give me a run for my >>>money, and to do this they couldn't be that far from your strength,and turn the >>>situation around if I was winning someone after nine games I'd know I wasn't >>>inferior to this person and I'd know for certain i could give him some good >>>matches! Wouldn't you? >>>or I may even lose! >> >> >>What i said is that it would be ridiculous for anyone to assume that after 9 >>games because Anand was ahead by 1 game to say that it was the superior player. >> I didn't say anything about denying that he was close in strength. Nor did i >>imply for or against the proposition that deep blue is close in strength to >>Kasparov. What i said was that it is ridiculous for people to claim that deep >>blue is the superior player over Kasparov based upon only six games(especially >>those games). A claim that has been made far, far too many times. > >I don't think that claim has been made by many... I do think that many have >said that "clearly DB is not grossly inferior" and the match result certainly >shows that... IE I don't think you can be grossly inferior to someone and >win a match of 6 games... > >You might not be better, but you certainly aren't going to be a lot worse >either... statistics won't support that hypothesis... Bob, take the first six games of the Fritz vs Junior match posted in this forum and try to estimate which program(player) is better.(!?!?!) Even among computers it is possible to see strange(unbalanced) results in favor of an inferior program. Whith humans this is even more obvious, because of the HUMAN factor. The *hype* factor ... humans get scared distracted, blah-blah, you know all that. It is very possible for a computer, under the right conditions, to win big against a much stronger human player. Now, I do not like the way GK handled his defeat! He lost fair and square! Big egos demand big words ..... :))) I also believe DB performed very well(for a computer!!!)and extremely well as a tournament-match player. After all no *external presure" can get to it!!! regards. hristo
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.