Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:05:20 05/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2005 at 15:49:57, Roger D Davis wrote: >On May 25, 2005 at 15:06:40, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On May 25, 2005 at 13:35:59, Roger D Davis wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>I think that one assumption that you make is wrong in all the discussion. >> >>Adams is not much weaker player than Kaspparov and the rating difference between >>them is only 75 elo. >> >>Here is the fide rating list: >> >>1 Kasparov, Garry g RUS 2812 12 1963-04-13 >>2 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2785 25 1969-12-11 >>3 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2778 25 1975-03-15 >>4 Leko, Peter g HUN 2763 25 1979-09-08 >>5 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2753 13 1975-06-25 >>6 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2739 17 1969-03-18 >>7 Adams, Michael g ENG 2737 25 1971-11-17 >> >>Uri > > > >I think you're assuming that all ELO intervals are created equal. > >Kasparov is generally considered to be the most powerful player in the history >of the game. There is no other player in the world so widely known. No other >player commands the kind of fame that Kasparov does. > >Yet, in 1997, the year of the Deep Blue match, Kasparov was rated about 2795, >less than what he is today. > >Historically, I'd bet that seldom has Kasparov been 75 points stronger than the >#2 ranked player. Maybe never. > >So it's obvious that it takes 75 points or less to make a Kasparov. > >Roger Kasparov did not beat Karpov easily. 13-11,12.5-11.5,12-12 are results that I remember. Later Kasparov also had problems in the beginning of the match against anand and the result was 4-4 and I remember that anand even won the first game in the match. I think that Kasparov had never big advantage relative to player number 2 or even player number 7. He was better but only slighlty better. He could win convincingly(see the match against short) but also lose(see the match against Kramnik). He could win a tournament but also could lose in a tournament and I remember that Karpov won some tournament that kasparov said that the tournament is going to show who is the real champion(Karpov was the fide champion at that time but only because Kasparov and Short did not agree to accept the conditions of fide). 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.