Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:18:16 10/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 1999 at 01:55:22, Micheal Cummings wrote: >On October 11, 1999 at 22:17:23, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>So what this means is that IBM would have to be induced to take part in such a >>match. The inducement would have to be huge, I bet Ed could offer IBM a million >>dollars and they wouldn't do it. >> >>Everything I have heard indicates that *they* think they would do great against >>any micro, so I don't think it is a matter of fear, I think it is a matter of >>having nothing to gain and something significant to lose. >> >>There is no rational reason to play against a micro, setting yourself up as the >>bad guy in a David versus Goliath contest, when you've already beaten the human >>world champion at standard time controls. >> >>bruce > >They have nothing to gain or lose now anyway. DB had not been around for quite a >long time, programs have advanced as too technology. I would be interested in >seeing Shredder and your program ferret play DB using WCCC99 hardware. > >The point I am trying to put across is that DB does not beat humans players >clearly. I think that the top 5 programs at WCCC99 can beat DB, maybe not on a >regular basis. But with technology, expecially computers advancing ever single >day, DB will be old hat. > that is wrong. DB Junior played dozens of games vs human GM's. and it won about 4 of every 5 or better. Hsu has about finished a book that I think you'll find a very interesting 'read'. It discusses some of these issues a bit. >If Hsu and his team ever make statements, then they will have to back them up, >escpecially these days. they _always_ have. > >I think the way computer chess should go is in developing and making programs >and hardware in which we can all have access to on the market that can be at the >level of GM's and hopefully beat them regularly. > >Plus what good is DB apart from putting it in freak shows games against humans, >It is not like many could use it to analyse. > >The thing with having a machine like DB is when Kasparov states that he thought >humans were involved in some of the moves, well who knows, there is no other DB >to test this. > >DB could be a bunch of GM's sitting in a room relaying moves via computer to the >DB team playing Kasparov. These kinds of things have happened in the past going >back to the turn of the century. Deep Blue could be a genie in a bottle, too, if you want to take things to rediculous extremes. > >DB is dead, unless it comes back and proves itself again then who cares about >it. It took them long enough to beat a top chess player, and even looking at >those games, do you think Kasparov played his best. I am not a top player and >there are some moves that even confuse me, and when you see that Kasparov >resigns a few moves later, I know why. It isn't as "dead" as you might think. Just sit around and wait for a while.
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.