Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:52:04 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 22:06:25, Matt Frank wrote: >>So in other words, an opinion in a near complete vacuum of knowlege is just as >>ephemeral as a fading idea as we pass into sleep, and has about the same >>tangibility. >> >>That's my opinion of how strong it was. > >Well that machine and it's previous iteration (which had maybe 50-120 weaker elo >score) has a score of -1 during 12 match games with the world champion. Are you, >or are we really in a vacuum? Yes, we are. Same thing with the Anand match. We do know the computers are good, very good. But how good I honestly believe we do not have enough informaiton to justify a statement. Look how many games it takes to get a GM norm. That's not by accident. In such a long trial, any weakness will be exposed. With a few very short exhibitions, we really have no idea. It is also possible that with better fabs today that they could build a deepest blue that is 100x faster than deep blue. But if a frog had wings, he would not scrape his butt on the rocks. And if wishes were horses then beggars would fly. It all makes for interesting banter, but (as I also feel about most of the opinion polls) there is not really much point in speculation because we have insufficient facts. Suppose that a new phenom (we'll call him charlie) played 12 games against top GM's and won most of them. Would we really believe that charlie was a GM until we saw him duplicate it 10 times at least? Perhaps the reason they dismantled deep blue is that they were _aware_ of some fundamental flaw that would eventually be discovered. We simply don't know.
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.