Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:52:23 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 13:01:58, blass uri wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 10:58:34, Chris Carson wrote: > ><snipped> >>I do not expect you to ever admit a mistake or that someelse >>might have a valid point. I have never seen that. I do see that >>96 DB is a dead issue and you try to prove 97 DB 90% supriority >>based on DT vs 386 and 486 machines. This is just plain not valid. > >I agree. >Hsu did not want people to believe that Deeper blue has 90% superiority. > >Hsu did not want people to believe that Deep thought can get more than 90% >against Fritz3. > >If we assume that Deep thought could get more than 90% against Fritz3 p90(at >tournament time control) then hsu could convince people about it by doing public >games between Deep thought and Fritz3. > >He could know that people have the impression that Deep thought is weak after >Deep thought lost against Fritz3 and drew against wchess(p90) >He did not try to prove to the public that they are wrong and previous games are >not proof because deep thought did not play against a lot of commercial programs >on good hardware and I cannot learn much from results against not commercial >programs that may lose in part of the cases because of bugs. > >The reason for the fact that Hsu did not try to prove that Deep thought was >strong may be one of the following: >1)Deep thought was weak. > >2)He wanted kasparov to believe that deep thought was weak. > >In the second case his behaviour was bad because he tried to use psychological >tricks to win kasparov(I do not think that kasparov could learn much about >Deeper blue from watching many games of Deep thought because Deeper bluer was >clearly different but kasparov could avoid wrong assumptions that lead to bad >preperation in this case). > >If he wanted kasparov to believe that Deeper blue is weak than he deserves that >people will think that deeper blue is weaker than it really was. > >I see no reason to believe the more than 90% against Fritz3(p90) when I saw no >proof for it. > >Uri I see no reason to doubt the results. Doing so is directly calling Hsu, Campbell, Hoane, etc "liars". I know them to be better than that...
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.