Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:09:46 11/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 1998 at 06:07:08, blass uri wrote: > >On November 13, 1998 at 04:34:06, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >> >>On November 13, 1998 at 04:15:13, blass uri wrote: >> >>>I think that IBM does a mistake when they do not play with deeper blue against >>>top programs. >>> >>>If they can have more than 90% against top programs they should play against top >>>programs only to prove it because many people do not believe that they can do >>>it. >>> >>>I read in the newspaper after the match that people claimed that kasparov played >>>in the match like IM and in the last game even worse (the logical result is that >>>they play like an IM) >>> >>>everyone agree that an IM cannot win top programs 9:1 so if they can do it then >>>it will be a proof that they are not close to be weak like some people think. >>> >>>Uri >> >>If Deep Blue and IBM has lost for a second time then it would still be around, >>but once they won against Kasparov they did a runner. >>Unfortunately people who play chess know, yes Deep Blue is very strong, but the >>best, I think not. >>But allot of people who watch the TV and read the newspaper know very little >>about chess or more so, computer chess. So all they hear and see it that IBM's >>Deep Blue beat the worlds number one player. All the publicity they need. >>And soon as Kasparov come out and tried to say what went wrong and how he should >>have won, they call it sour grapes. >>Well Kasparov is right, he should have won, Deep Blue should not have even been >>in the race. >>Deep Blue with its very few games against quality opponents is not king, very >>far from it. >I do not think deep blue is better than everyone but I think that it is better >than what some people think so I understand their decision not to play a third >match against kasparov but I do not understand why they did not play a match >against top programs to prove they are at least can have >90% against top >programs. > >Uri I remind you again, that predecessors of this program (deep thought, deep thought II, deep blue prototype) competed in computer chess events from 1987 thru 1995, and over that period of time, playing in at least one computer chess event per year, they won over 90% of the games, and that didn't include just micro computers, it included even stronger programs (at the time) such as Cray Blitz, HiTech, and so forth... DB's only 200X faster than those older versions of the IBM program, so there's little wrong with thinking they would at least do as well as they did before...
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.