Looks like even ex world champ is using Stockfish or its derivatives/clones.
Quote from the article:
These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue
.
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue
Is Kasparov joking.These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue
Sadly, he's probably not joking. That's just ignorance talking. And this guy charged Carlsen a million bucks for some classes, jeez.mehmet karaman wrote:Is Kasparov joking.These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Rya 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)
1)There is no contradictions between the claimsmehmet karaman wrote:Is Kasparov joking.These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Ryka 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)
Isn't that what he said - that free programs are better?mehmet karaman wrote:Is Kasparov joking.These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Ryka 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)
He said that today they are. Mehmet is claiming that was true 10 years ago.rcmaddox wrote:Isn't that what he said - that free programs are better?mehmet karaman wrote:Is Kasparov joking.These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue
More than 10 years free chess-playing programs are better than Deep Blue. (Ryka 1.0, Fruit 2.2.1 etc...)
MonteCarlo wrote:Yes, but the point is that nothing about that is a joke or incorrect from Kasparov.
Saying "These days free chess-playing programs is (sic) better at chess than Deep Blue" does NOT imply that they only recently became better.
When I talk to people who only really know about computer chess from all the publicity around Deep Blue, I often say something similar, along the lines of "Modern engines running on a normal desktop are much stronger than Deep Blue."
There's no implication in there about when other engines passed Deep Blue; it's just a matter of fact statement about today's engines relative to Deep Blue. The engines from the intervening years aren't mentioned
It would be like my saying in a conversation about the middle ages "Today's infant mortality rates are much, much lower than they were in the middle ages." and getting a reply "You must be joking! Infant mortality rates were lower than that long ago!"
All a bit silly
It is true both that today's engines are stronger than Deep Blue and that engines were stronger than Deep Blue some time ago (obviously there's not really direct evidence, i.e., matches, to show this, but the indirect evidence is pretty overwhelming).
As has already been pointed out, there is no contradiction between those two claims.
All this is written in the present tense, as if it were a new development, Best case scenario, something's been lost in translation.These days free chess-playing programs is better at chess than Deep Blue, he said, and that’s indicative of progress in computer science and engineering.