Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 10:35:59 05/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2005 at 13:10:34, Uri Blass wrote: >On May 25, 2005 at 12:58:46, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>On May 25, 2005 at 05:35:14, emerson tan wrote: >> >>>s hydra now stronger than deep blue? >> >>We know Kasparov, even then, was a much stronger player than Adams is today. If >>Hydra, supposedly stronger than Deep Blue, loses to a much weaker player, then >>that provides a strong argument that Hydra is weaker than Deep Blue. >> >>On the other hand, if Adams loses, then it says nothing about Hydra's strength >>relative to Deep Blue. >> >>I guess you could always argue that Deep Blue can beat Kasparov and Kasparov can >>beat Adams and Adams can beat Hydra and Hydra can beat Deep Blue, but it doesn't >>seem likely. Particularly if Adams can get a convincing score. >> >>Roger > >I think that you have no way to compare Adams of 2005 with Kasparov of 1997. >Humans today have more experience against computers relative to 1997 and it is >not clear to me that Kasparov of 1997 was stronger against computers relative to >Adams of 2005. > >I also think that the fact that Kasparov lost says nothing because the 2 games >that kasparov lost were because of stupid mistakes of him because of >psychological reasons(resigning in a drawn position and playing a line that he >was not ready to play). > >Hydra is also more known than Deeper blue was known at the time of Kasparov > >Kasparov could get no games of something similiar to deeper blue(deep thought >was clearly weaker) when Adams has no problem to get games of something similiar >to hydra. > >Uri What I said was that it provides a strong argument. I don't think it's a matter of certainty. I think it's a matter of making probabilistic statements, and knowing their limitations. In addition to not knowing whether the Kasparov of 1997 was stronger against computers relative to the Adams of 2005---as you pointed out---we don't know whether Deep Blue's style might have been particularly deadly to Kasparov for some reason, or whether Hydra's style might be particularly vulnerable to Adams, or whether Adams has been reading this bulletin board and picking up pointers on the weaknesses of computers. We don't even know how successfully Hsu's team managed to tune Deep Blue against Kasparov. Maybe it will eventually emerge that it's always possible to tune a strong enough hardware beast against any particular human and defeat him. Who knows. Maybe Kasparov wouldn't freak himself out today and lose with stupid mistakes and then again, maybe he would. So...lots of unknowns. Comparisons are interesting and inevitable. Humans will find a way of making comparisons whether we want them to, or not. I think you can continue to 2nd guess yourself ad infinitum about most anything. I prefer not to do that and just stick with my statement that an Adams victory provides a strong argument that Hydra is weaker than Deep Blue. Does it establish it with certainty. Obviously not. But it agrees with commonsense, and that's the ruler that most people will bring to the interpretation if Adams wins. I think if you're looking for certainty, it's best to stick with mathematical proof. Everything else is fraught with contention. Roger
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.