Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:51:41 02/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 1999 at 20:13:33, James Robertson wrote: >On February 02, 1999 at 09:39:19, Reynolds Takata wrote: > >[snip] > >>>It is like what Kasparov said about Deep Blue after he lost. He said that Deep >>>Blue would get crushed in normal tournament play, because Deep Blue was a >>>machine taylored to defeat Gary Kasparov and only Gary Kasparov. >> >>Well i'm sorry to say, that the simple act of adding accurate and strong >>positional information to a program doesn't make it weaker. Further i'm sure if >>deep blue was going to play INVITATIONAL tournament chess just like Kasparov, >>then Deep blue would prepare for the 10-15 players at the event, just like >>Kasparov , had a prepared line and strategy for EVERY opponent at Wijk AAN zee. > >Then why is preparing an opening and strategy against a computer different? Three differences: 1) The GM can practice against the computer. The computer cannot practice against the GM. 2) The GM can modify his play during a game and during the match. The computer cannot. If the GM finds a series of lines where the computer repeatedly loses in practice, there is a good chance that the lines will be played during the match and the computer may be doomed to lose at least some games before the match even begins. 3) The GM has the example of where Garry failed against Deep Blue to show him how to NOT play against a computer program. Do not try to lead it into inferior positions. Always try to play the best move on the board and not necessarily anti-computer moves in all cases. Garry probably learned more about how to play against a computer from that loss than even he realizes. This GM has more of an advantage than Garry had against Deep Blue since this GM can analyze previous Hiarcs 7 games and can also practice against it. Garry did not have these advantages. He had to guess based on other computer programs. These differences are significant and explain why the experiment is skewed. The only FAIR test would have to keep both parties in the dark. And that could still happen if the GM agrees not to analyze Hiarcs at all and Matt agrees to use the standard opening book. But they are probably too caught up in their previous agreements to make that adjustment. KarinsDad > >James > >[snip]
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.