Author: blass uri
Date: 10:57:19 01/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 1999 at 11:54:45, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 10, 1999 at 01:28:23, blass uri wrote: > >>>> >>>>I do not think that IBM payed to the right people to help them. >>> >>>Why not? Kasparov is still complaining about it. Sounds like they were >>>successful to me. You can almost always get better people, but you shouldn't >>>argue with success. >> >>I expected deeper blue to play better > >If it did not play up to your expectations, then IBM should have hired different >people (i.e. did not hire the right people?)? This sounds strange to me. > >Your example below of a 10 speed differential and the program still lost proves >that IBM did hire some good people. When did Fritz3 ever beat the world champion >in match play? How do you know that Deep Blue wasn't programmed to play better >against humans at the sacrifice of playing not as well against computers? rom >one year to the next and only a 2x speed improvement, Deep Blue went from losing >to winning. Probably due to the work of people like GM Joel Benjamin in having >the program understand chess just a little better. It's always easy to criticize >the work of others, even if they are successful. > >>It won only because of stupid mistakes of kasparov in the 2 games that it >>won(resigning in a draw position and going to a line that you were not ready to >>go). > >Chess is a game of making mistakes. Players do not win at chess, their opponents >lose. Even the best players in the world make mistakes. Years ago, a chess >program playing against a GM hung a bishop on purpose. The GMs observing the >game thought that the program was really poorly written to do that. That is, >until they analyzed the game and found that without the program hanging the >bishop, the GM had mate in 8. Is hanging the bishop the mistake, or is allowing >the mate the mistake. You decide. If you take the position that the program >should have allowed the mate since it may be difficult for a GM to see a mate in >8, it would have been real embarrassing (to the programmers, not the program) to >lose by being mated when it could have been avoided. If you take the position >that the program should have hung the bishop, then again, the program eventually >lost. The program's position was lost in either case, hence, any port in a storm >and all that. > >It's real hard to understand a criticism of the Deep Blue team when Kasparov is >the one who made the mistakes, not Deep Blue. Your posting does not make sense >to me. If Deep Blue would have played stronger, wouldn't have Kasparov just have >made his mistakes earlier and your statement would still hold. I know that the loser is always losing by doing a mistake but the point is that kasparov did mistakes that he usually does not do. Resigning in a draw position is not a mistake that kasparov did in the past. Going to a line that he was not ready to go to is not a mistake that humans usually do. I saw the games and I was not impressed by the level of deeper blue. I expected them to play better with their hardware. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.