Author: blass uri
Date: 20:52:44 07/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1998 at 21:34:57, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 20, 1998 at 18:00:51, blass uri wrote: > >> >>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 > >Although I don't have the same respect for Deep Thought that Bob Hyatt >does, I still have a lot of respect for it. It has beaten my program >twice, and both times probably prevented my program from becoming >world champion. Two games is a small sample to be sure, but common >sense makes me believe this was no fluke. > >I don't think Deep Thought (or Deep Blue) is invincible and you would >see many wins and draws against it but I have no doubt it would >still dominate the micro's. Murray estimated his odds of winning >that championship at about 50/50. He recognized that Deep Blue would >be a heavy favorite in any single game but that dodging 5 bullets >is a harder task. I was more optimistic than even they were, >thinking Deep Thought had about a 70% chance of winning. As it >turned out they drew a game and lost a game and this put them out >of it. To me this was not a surprising result, only an unlucky >one for them. If you played 100 tournaments with the same exact >players, I believe they would win over 70% of these tournaments, >but there would be several they did not win. I think if I use Junior5.0 on pentium400 (instead of deep blue) against the same programs (Fritz3, Genius3 on a pentium90 and other programs) then Junior5.0 has at least 70% chance of winning. I agree deep blue were unlucky and in that time they dominated the micros but I was talking about the micros of now when I said DeepThought is not better than the best micros Uri > >Also I believe that MOST of the field would have won at least >one of these 100 touraments. I believe the difference between the >very best micro and Deep Thought at this tournament was much >less than the difference between the best micro and the worst >10 percent. I think there is a large range of strengths in >the programs that show up at these tournaments. > > >- Don
This page took 0 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.