with the same configuration and hardware.
Most likely because it was in the 90s. They weren't as strong as the 2010+ engines. Perhaps the cutoff point was between 2000-2010.
@WorldRenownPatzer said in #2:
> Most likely because it was in the 90s. They weren't as strong as the 2010+ engines. Perhaps the cutoff point was between 2000-2010.
So, something like #5 of today is better than the best in the past?
> Most likely because it was in the 90s. They weren't as strong as the 2010+ engines. Perhaps the cutoff point was between 2000-2010.
So, something like #5 of today is better than the best in the past?
@br0kzz said in #3:
> So, something like #5 of today is better than the best in the past?
I would surmise so. If you think about it, they had Deep Blue, then there was Deep Junior. Kasparov tied it in 2003.
> So, something like #5 of today is better than the best in the past?
I would surmise so. If you think about it, they had Deep Blue, then there was Deep Junior. Kasparov tied it in 2003.
They cut deep blue in half and gave it to two separate museums, so we will never know the fact that there was a GM helping that computer when it went up against Kasparov.
@br0kzz said in #3:
> So, something like #5 of today is better than the best in the past?
About whom are you talking 'best in the past'?
If about computers, then definitely but if about human players then definitely not!
> So, something like #5 of today is better than the best in the past?
About whom are you talking 'best in the past'?
If about computers, then definitely but if about human players then definitely not!
@Akbar2thegreat said in #6:
> About whom are you talking 'best in the past'?
> If about computers, then definitely but if about human players then definitely not!
We are talking about computers.
> About whom are you talking 'best in the past'?
> If about computers, then definitely but if about human players then definitely not!
We are talking about computers.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #6:
> About whom are you talking 'best in the past'?
> If about computers, then definitely but if about human players then definitely not!
Players, something like Wesley So or Caruana vs Alekhine in his prime.
Personally I think that today's players on average are much better than in the past, more due to popularization than just the evolution of theory. I'm just not 100% sure about the top players.
> About whom are you talking 'best in the past'?
> If about computers, then definitely but if about human players then definitely not!
Players, something like Wesley So or Caruana vs Alekhine in his prime.
Personally I think that today's players on average are much better than in the past, more due to popularization than just the evolution of theory. I'm just not 100% sure about the top players.
@WorldRenownPatzer said in #7:
> We are talking about computers.
In that case, definitely yes (as I said in previous post)!
> We are talking about computers.
In that case, definitely yes (as I said in previous post)!
@kaotic99 said in #5:
> They cut deep blue in half and gave it to two separate museums, so we will never know the fact that there was a GM helping that computer when it went up against Kasparov.
I've actually played against it on basically equivalent hardware to the setup that beat Kasparov (ie the same model of IBM mainframe). Got trounced, obviously - it played a Kan Sicilian and somehow ended up rolling its center pawns forward and pushing me off the board.
> They cut deep blue in half and gave it to two separate museums, so we will never know the fact that there was a GM helping that computer when it went up against Kasparov.
I've actually played against it on basically equivalent hardware to the setup that beat Kasparov (ie the same model of IBM mainframe). Got trounced, obviously - it played a Kan Sicilian and somehow ended up rolling its center pawns forward and pushing me off the board.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.