I suggest you first shut up, then look at the post by me. And look _right at the top_ where it says "Rolf wrote:"Rolf wrote:Excuse me, Bob, but when could you begin to admit if your were mistaken? You are caught in the act of replying - provenly ! - to Mats and now you claim having responded to Rolf which is provenly WRONG!bob wrote:If you are educated in computer science, you ought to be able to see that _my_ post was a response to Rolf. It really isn't that hard to follow a thread and see who is replying to who. I even quoted _his_ comments and replied to them.MatsW wrote:Robert, I did not "insult" Deep Blue. One can't insult a computer. I am educated in computer science myself, and I have been very interested in opening studies. I try to address issues concerning creativity in chess, and how to strengten this aspect in view of the general problem of computerization. It is problematic.
Facts are, in the final game against Deep Blue, Kasparov made his error already in the seventh move: 7...h6?? Deep Blue did not think, but sacrificed his knight on e6 according to the book. Game over!
Then you make quotes which are not from me.
/Mats
So unless you are "Rolf in disguise" you are way off base...
Here is the decisive quote and please respect that Rolf didnt comment or write about Deep Blue at all! So, by consequence and simple logic you spoled it. Mats spoke about DB, not Rolf! And since you accused the one who had commented on DB, you can only have meant Mats, not Rolf.
Here is the proof:
QUOTE
Rolf wrote:
MatsW wrote:
The problem of opening theory in computer chess. What's the point in
measuring the opening book knowledge when arranging matches between
chess programs? By example, Deep Blue never got out of the opening
book before it was practically over in the final game against
Kasparov. Would the chess public stand up and applause if a human
player sat with an opening book in his lap, replicating the moves in
the book, and winning against the world champion? Of course not, they
would boo at him. I realize, of course, that it is a difficult
question, not the least because human players can play from memory as
well, although not nearly as good. Nevertheless, it is high time that
this practice is questioned in computer chess, at least in matches
between chess programs.
[now here is the direct judgement of R. Hyatt:]
Most of us greatly enjoyed our break from this kind of nonsensical post. You apparently can't write a single post without tossing an insult at Deep Blue. Deep blue. If my memory is correct, and this can be checked by looking at the DB log for game 6 for anyone interested, they were out of book around move 10. The game went to move 20 or something, The game was not "practically over" at that point.
I have seen GM players play 30 moves before they stop to think in a game. Do they cheat?
QUOTE END
Moral:
You shouldnt put yourself on such a highly patronizing false horse and insult e.g. Rolf if Mats has written what you then commented on. Thanks, Bob.
Now show us the next shot from the hip...
Get it now?
My post _directly_ follows one from you. Here is the link to your post:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 22&t=28011
Ad here is the link to my post, which _directly_ follows your post:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 64&t=28011
And here is the top of my post which followed yours:
So, my conclusion is, whatever you are on, you need to take _less_ of, and whatever you are not on, you need more of it. My post is directly addressed to you, not to anyone else. It directly follows your post, not anybody elses. And it directly quotes your post, in addition to the one you replied to.Bob wrote:Rolf wrote:MatsW wrote:The problem of opening theory in computer chess. What's the point in
measuring the opening book knowledge when arranging matches between
chess programs? By example, Deep Blue never got out of the opening
book before it was practically over in the final game against
Kasparov. Would the chess public stand up and applause if a human
player sat with an opening book in his lap, replicating the moves in
the book, and winning against the world champion? Of course not, they
would boo at him. I realize, of course, that it is a difficult
question, not the least because human players can play from memory as
well, although not nearly as good. Nevertheless, it is high time that
this practice is questioned in computer chess, at least in matches
between chess programs.
Most of us greatly enjoyed our break from this kind of nonsensical post. You apparently can't write a single post without tossing an insult at Deep Blue. Deep blue. If my memory is correct, and this can be checked by looking at the DB log for game 6 for anyone interested, they were out of book around move 10. The game went to move 20 or something, The game was not "practically over" at that point.
If you can't follow that, then perhaps you should go back to where you have been for the past month or two and stay there..
):