Author: Chris Carson
Date: 11:43:10 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 14:30:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 14:12:32, Ed Schröder wrote: > >> >>Never have we seen these 40 games. The least one might expect that data >>can be checked if it comes from a commercial source don't you think? >> >>For the rest of your arguments I think Chris did a very good job. >> >>Ed >> >> > > >Not seeing them doesn't bother me at all. Had I known _nothing_ about >deep thought, and the later DB hardware, I might have a different opinion. >But I _know_ what deep thought did to _everybody_. I have no trouble >believing that a new version of that processor would be even stronger... > >IE their past performance showed they were _clearly_ the best there was, >computer-wise. Which makes taking their word about the 40 games pretty easy >for me to do... I am still waiting on what programs were used and what the rules and set up was and who the operator was. I do not think that any of the programmers had approved this match (thus the operator). Even if this is a true result, it is not valid with out full disclosure ahead of time. You critize people all the time for "program x beat crafty 100 to nothing" and demand to know what the book, settings, pgn's ... in this forum. Why the double standard. Did they test against Deep Junior? Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.