Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:08:03 07/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 1998 at 23:52:44, blass uri wrote: > >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 > I posted a more correct Fredkin note earlier today, where I discovered that Deep Thought produced a performance rating of over 2650 over 25 games to claim the Fredkin stage II award. Exactly what program would you propose that can play at this level on a microcomputer? I don't see any. Remember, we are not talking about 4-5 games, because I can produce that many consecutive GM vs Crafty games where Crafty won. I'm talking about 25 games in a row, with out the ability to "cherry pick" the games, other than you can pick any 25 consecutive games you want (at standard time controls of course.) And today, there's no program that can do that. And don't forget that DT was a fraction of what DB and DB2 were/are... >> >>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.