Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:01:10 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 16:01:50, blass uri wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 15:37:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 20, 2000 at 15:19:46, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>Dead wrong! >>> >>>You do not list the results of DT against any programs/hardware, >>>I agree with that. >>> >>>1988 to 1994 DT dominated programs on 386 and 486 hardware. With >>>me so far, not P90. Perhaps 90% against 386/486, but not P90. >>> >>>In 1995 DT played a few games against P90, lost to Fritz and drew >>>with Wchess. >>> >>>Your argument is that DT beat everything 90%, not true for P90 >>>systems. >>> >>>Your argument is that DB is 100 times faster than DT thus the >>>90% victory margin holds because machines today are not 100 >>>times faster than the machines DT beat. Not true. >>> >>>Again, the 90% score was against 386 and 486 machines and 8x700 is >>>400 to 900 times as fast. Thats a pretty big jump from the machines >>>DT beat from 1988 to 1994. The 1995 hw that fritz ran on is a P90, >>>DT lost and drew against those systems. That is not 90% and 8x700 >>>is about 100 times as fast. >>> >>>Got it. No I didn't think you did. >>> >>>I'll bet you have to have the last word, even if it makes you >>>look silly. :) >>> >>>I may post more on this, or I may not. Ignoring any futher >>>posts is not an admission that Bob has won, just that I am >>>tired of arguing with a fence post on this subject. :) >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Chris Carson >> >> >>I've said all I intend to say. If you don't get it, or don't want to get it, >>fine. There is clearly more evidence to say they are unbeatable than there >>is evidence to the contrary. The 40 game match was a 1996 match, so that was >>_not_ on 486's... You can check with those that attended Murray's or Hsu's >>talks and they can probably tell you the exact hardware. >> >>The evidence is there. But you do have to open your eyes, and not your mouth. > >I opened my eyes and did not see the games. >I do not know the exact conditions of the games. >It is impossible to check for errors in the games. > >I prefer to look at games not from the history before 1995 when programs were >weaker than today and only in public games. The programs _were_ weaker than they are today. Deep blue (deep thought included). Every year, from 1998 on, there were new improvements to deep thought. New chip. multiple chips. new search extensions. Etc. They improved at the same rate as everyone else. And since they started off so far ahead of the field, the gap _never_ narrowed. If you want public games since 1995, then you aren't going to find any except for the two kasparov matches and the many matches DB Jr played against GM players all over the world. But not against computers. I saw enough prior to and including 1995 to know what they could do... because they _did_ it year after year. Somehow I get the impression that you (and others) think that after 1995, DB stayed stagnant while everybody else improved. That is a crock and a half... > >The theory you suggest is that the deep blue team decided to do the best they >can to hide everything positive about their machine. I didn't suggest that. They played in every computer event through 1995 except for the 1992 WCCC. > >people can choose if to believe it. >This is my last post in this subject. > >Uri I believe those that I _trust_. I always have. I always will. I don't believe those that I don't trust, for obvious reasons. Hsu, I trust. And Campbell. And the others on the team...
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.