Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Deep Junior is the Winner but.....

Author: stuart taylor

Date: 23:01:23 02/16/00

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2000 at 23:56:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On February 16, 2000 at 23:48:34, Terry Presgrove wrote:
>
>>On February 16, 2000 at 23:19:43, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote:
>>
>>>Dear CCC Members,
>>>
>>>What we have here is a "failyooooor to communicate".  I do sympathize with GM
>>>Michael Adams because I had food poisoning in the tropics myself.  I also feel
>>>that the delays were too much for the man.  Deep Junior was doing over a million
>>>nps at times and it takes extreme vigilance to avoid tactical traps at these
>>>levels.  I believe that in the interest of having further grandmaster
>>>participation in computer events or vice-versa  it was wise to forfeit the match
>>>to Adams.
>>
>>  Wise.......how so? More of a humilation for the DJ team.
>>>
>>>Unlike DB the machine DJ will live to fight again.  Next time it will be on a
>>>quad Intel 1,500 Mhz machine and have even more massive databases.  I do not
>>>think that the sales of Junior 6a will suffer because of this match.  If you
>>>think about it, there is uncertainty as to whether DJ would win the second
>>>match.  If we think that Adams would fall into the same tactical trap like the
>>>first game we are not giving him credit for the 2700+ elo rating he has.
>>>
>>>If DJ had been another human grandmaster then there would have been no debate
>>
>> You hit the nail on the head. I fail to see how any entry to an invitaional
>>tournament should be treated different from any other.
>>
>> as
>>>to the continuation of the game.  Life is not fair.  Adams remains a great
>>>player and so does Deep Junior.
>>
>> This was a chess tournament with rules which were not applied equally across
>>the board. If tournaments fail to apply the rules equally then they cease to be
>>valid.
>>>
>>>I just got my copy of Junior 6a and it crushes me in less time than Hiarcs 7.32
>>>and usually is two ply ahead in its' selective search than Hiarcs.  If you love
>>>Hiarcs then you will marry Junior.
>>>
>>>
>>>Tim Frohlick
>
>
>The problem was that the organizers were simply incompetent to do the job.  The
>possibility of a serious communication outage was apparently never considered.
>
>And folks wonder how Kasparov got rolled over by IBM and Deep Blue?  If Kasparov
>had this type of preparation for that match, it is amazing that it was as close
>as it actually ended up.
Bob

Yes! and Kasparov could have been roundly beaten 6.0 by Boris Diplomat!
S.Taylor



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.