Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:12:42 10/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 1999 at 21:59:37, odell hall wrote: >On October 17, 1999 at 20:58:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 17, 1999 at 19:32:48, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>1)I understood from odell hall that lev albert said that deep blue and not deep >>>thought is 2500 elo(I believe deeper blue is clearly better). >>> >> >> >>IF he thinks DB is 2500, then DT must be lower, correct? Because DT searched >>2-4M nodes per second, and was replaced by DB1 and then DB2. Now if DT was >>way under 2500, what is the probability that it could play 25 consecutive games >>and produce a performance rating of 2650? What is the probability that it could >>take a very low initial rating (due to many hardware/software problems early in >>its life-cycle) and _still_ produce a real rating of 2551 (USCF)? >> >>I'd say the odds that DB was only 2500 is approximately zero. > >And this is exactly my point!! Grandmasters say of kinds of Weird things that >make no sense! That is why you can't take at face value every statement made by >a grandmaster. Certainly Lev albert is intelligent enough to know that deepblue >can't possibly be 2500, however now that programs are getting very strong >Grandmasters are displaying an extreme bias against computers, Lev albert being >the most prominent example. I bet if you asked Ivanchuk he would say that >deepblue is even lower than 2500. Reason and common sense somehow escapes the >Grandmasters when they see there position threatened. Can you give me a rational >reason why he would say 2500?? I can't believe that anyone actually believes he >really believes this. So the question is what was his motive in making the >statement? Perhaps loss income when people start to realize they can save >hundreds of dollars in chess lessons, and simply speed 40 dollars with fritz and >have a analysis partner as strong or stronger than a grandmaster. Another >example was bent Larsen, even after losing to the program he would still try to >put it's rating down. Can you see the pattern and my point? No.. For one important reason. The GM's I talk to regularly, I consider to be 'friends'. IE they call me by phone, or contact me via email or on ICC as often as I contact them. Those conversations are devoid of prejudice, IMHO. Because when we talk about computer weaknesses, they aren't vague like Lev A., rather they will say 'look at this game...' and off we go. That is guiding what I do on a regular basis... GMs will say many things in public. I think they are _far_ more honest when you get them into a private conversation, although many are quite honest in public. As a result, I don't put a lot of stock in what they say "on the stage", but if they are willing to talk privately, it is usually pretty easy to see if they are being honest or hyping...
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.