|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Re. Deep Blue and Gasparov
It depends upon your viewpoint.This was one game not multiple games or
markets played simultaneously.There is one Grandmaster IBM declined to play
because his style could have been a greater contest and possible loss in
this publicity stunt.
The European computer event against Grandmasters was essentially a draw in
1997.
When Deep Blue comes up with a system to beat commodities I will be a
believer.I trade systems and the human response to drawdowns is quite
devastating at times.
Walt Downs is a legitimate contest winner and I would prefer to believe his
insights moreso than my good friend Mark.
John
>From: Dennis Holverstott <dennis@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: dennis@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [RT] Re: Gen: Trading {04}
>Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 20:01:52 -0800
>
>Dr. John posits:
> > I beleve my friend Mark is referring to Deep Blue vs.Gasparov.It was not
>a
> > question of better programming that defeated Gasparov in 1996 but rather
>the
> > time clock.IBM increased the number of chips and speed compared to prior
> > years so that Gasparov could not keep up with logical moves.The program
>was
> > not the issue.
>
>Actually, I think this supports Mark's point quite well. An exceptional
>human may be able to track a single chess game for a short period of
>time and beat Deep Blue. But the markets are multiple chess games
>running at lightning speed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A human will
>quickly die of exhaustion trying to track them all while a computer
>needs no sleep, food, vacations or bathroom breaks. Programming the
>skill and knowledge of a good discretionary trader is certainly no easy
>task but it's not impossible either and it's a worthwhile goal.
>
>--
> Dennis
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|