Author: blass uri
Date: 15:00:51 07/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1998 at 17:20:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 16, 1998 at 04:33:06, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On July 15, 1998 at 16:50:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 15, 1998 at 11:03:10, Danniel Corbit wrote: >>> >> >>>I agree with you 100%. However, if you look at the Fredkin prize award >>>information, DT was clearly playing "at GM strength, based on a >2550 >>>rating for 25 consecutive games, computed using normal rating procedures." >>> >>>But, as you pointed out, it wasn't a "GM" in the FIDE list. It might well >>>have been one in the USCF listing, there I don't know. There are multiple >>>federations that award GM titles of course... Only FIDE awards the IGM >>>title. >> >>Playing 25 games at performance of 2550 doesn't get you a 2550 rating. If you >>started out at 2400, for example, you will advance to only about 2450. >> >>Amir > >I believe that I gave one wrong impression and one wrong piece of data, based >on re-reading some old literature I have here. > >1. The Fredkin prize required a >2500 performance rating over 25 consecutive >games. > >2. Deep Thought produced a performance rating over 2650 for 25 consecutive >games. > >The rating was, (if my old email from Hans was/is still valid) computed as the >usual sum(wins+400, draws, losses-400)/N.. > >Which means that you had to produce a performance rating of 2500+ and *maintain* >it for 25 games so that you couldn't have a short "spike" and get over the hump >easily. But it was a performance rating, which means it was only applied to any >25 consecutive games they played. > >I had overlooked the >2650 rating they produced however (this was deep thought >2 IIRC) which was far slower than DB or DB-2. But >2650 is still quite an >accomplishment... regardless of how you look at it... and it couldn't be >blamed on "computer shock" either as there were plenty of games circulating >around for opponents to study. I think humans did not know to play against computers When DB had the >2650 result like they know now. I have a game of Deep Thought in 1988 against a commercial machine Mephisto Deep thought did not win convincingly and Mephisto missed a win in this game. the game is in the book how to beat your chess computer by David Levy I believe the version of Deep Blue that played in the computer championship on a slow machine was better than DeepThought (otherwise DeepThought was playing and not deep blue) and this version did a draw against wchess and lost to fritz3. When I see these results I think DeepThought is not better than today's programs Uri a
This page took 0.01 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.