Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 08:16:16 09/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2005 at 10:06:16, K. Burcham wrote: From a chessplayer viewpoint the judgement is very easy. Deep Blue played like a big crap. Todays software on other hand plays real strong. > > >Pretty remarkable, and it shows that they were extremely strong compared to >everyone else during that period. >DB was just "a lot faster, and a lot smarter" than deep thought. It was (and >would still be) competitive... > >Robert Hyatt > >Robert, you have always had "faith" in Deep Blue playing in a tournament against >todays programs. What do you base this on? Mostly just a gut feeling? Is there a >game that you were impressed with Deep Blue knowledge? Maybe just the fact that >Deep Blue held its own against Kasparov? >I read your point that you thought Deep Blue was strong for several years, but >its competitors may not do so well against todays programs. > >Maybe you are saying that with improvements between 1997 and 2005, Deep Blue >would be very strong today. Are you saying that Deep Blue, exactly the way it >was in 1997 would be competitive today, with its 1997 search depth and 1997 >knowledge? > >I am a fan of Deep Blue, its hardware and what they accomplished. I have spent >days trying to find a line or move that todays programs will not play. I cannot >find this, in fact we know that Deep Blue could not see 44.Kh2 wins in game 2. >Instead Deep Blue played the draw move 44.Kf1. The knowledge and depth was not >there to avoid this move. Todays programs also will not play this with winning >eval. Some will play, but like you said once, not for right reason. > > [D] R7/1r3kp1/1qQb1p1p/1p1PpP2/1Pp1B3/2P4P/6P1/6K1 w - - 0 44 > > >2006 Unlimited World Open >Fruit 2.2 >Zappa 2.0 >Deep Fritz 9 >Crafty 21.4 >Deep Blue 3.1x >Shredder 10 >Hiarcs 10.2 >Deep Junior 10 > >kburcham
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.