Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 04:38:14 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 06:37:27, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >On March 15, 2001 at 06:31:52, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On March 15, 2001 at 04:47:29, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >> >>>On March 14, 2001 at 19:46:11, Sonja Tiede wrote: >>> >>>2800 +/- 600 >>That absolutly makes _No_ sense whatsoever. It was Never as low >>2200 and never as High as 3400. > >AFAIK, it has not played lots of games. At least, if so, they don't have been >published. So, there is necessarily a large statistical variance. The size of >the variance is rather independent of the results. It depends on the number of >games which have been played. Since the number of games is small, you have a >large uncertainty. Agreed ? > >Uli No, I don't agree. One there were many games played which we will never see. Two the stats after playing the world's best, would not swing like that. I stand by my statement, it's logical, it's right. Terry McCracken >Deep Blue was close to 2700 +/- _50_ FIDE and that was about it. No great swings >>in it's play like you suggest. Deep Blues' play was fairly balanced >>and was about 2700 FIDE. It did of course have amazing tactical albility >>based on search wich would _appear_ to make it look 3000+ in some situations >>and much less in very strategic positions, which closely combined strategy >>and tactics. Game One was a good example, and Kasparov _crushed_ it. >>While Game Six was _worthless_ as GK mixed up his move order on move 7 while >>in book. He for some reason thought he had played 7...Bd6, and on move 8 Black >>plays h6. >> >>T.M.
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.