Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 12:24:37 04/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 1999 at 09:59:27, Adnan wrote: >On April 03, 1999 at 08:21:01, Rajen Gupta wrote: > >>at least as strong as the av strength of kasparov, anand, kramnik and karpov at >>his best. at best deep blue would be marginally stronger than any of the above, >>although i think karpov at his best would have managed to just about defeat deep >>blue > > >I think Deep Blue at best is not better than 2650 to 2700 Fide. People are >overestimating it's strength just because on few games. The twelve games that it >played in 96 and 97 weren't really impressive. Kasparov *lost* the 97 match by >playing weak. But as far as the quality of games is concerened, Deep Blue made >silly blunders, even tactical blunders, something which computers are supposed >to be at best. For example, Deep Blue's tactical blunder in game 2 that would >have forced a draw, or tactical blunder in game 6, 1996, where it could not even >calculate a simple combination accurately and allowed 22. Bxh7. > >If took real pity, I would rate it at 2650 to 2700 Fide -- AT BEST. You're talking about two different programs(?). Deep Blue of '96 and DB '97 were vastly different systems, both in hardware and software. The system of '96 was much weaker than the one of '97, so they can't be lumped together in this way. I don't understand your statement "Deep Blue's tactical blunder in game 2 that would have forced a draw". Deep Blue thought it was winning...Why would it want to force a draw?? In any case, 36. Qb6 [I think it has been shown] leads to a draw just as well as the moves played in the game do - Kasparov's problem was that he thought the machine could see everything, and so he resigned in the drawn position at the end. Jeremiah
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.