Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 17:36:03 04/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 1998 at 16:33:45, Don Dailey wrote: >On April 22, 1998 at 13:57:15, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On April 22, 1998 at 13:01:35, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>Points Score >>>0 50% >>>100 60% >>>200 75% >>>300 85% >>> >>>I've rounded these a little, but they're within a percent or so. >>> >>>So, if you think DB is 300 points better than micro program X, you'd >>>think it would score at least +8 -1 =1 or +7 -0 =3. >>> >>>bruce >> >>DB may beat the best micro by 8.5-1.5, or even, 9-1, or, 10-0, but this >>does NOT mean that its results against humans will be just as good, and >>300 rating points better. I'd venture to say that its hypothetical >>results vs humans should not exceed the best micro's results by more >>than 100-150 rating points. Thus, we talk of two different things -- DB >>may exploit a micro (or chess software)'s weaknesses quite consistently, >>but this does not apply to humans who are always prone to mistakes, >>errors, etc. Thus, another 'guestimate': DB (approximately) 2700, best >>micro (computer software) on a Pentium II / AMD K6 400 Mhz 2550-2600. >> >>Regards, >>Djordje > >Hi Djordje, > >This is how I voted. I believe the AVERAGE micro would get consistantly >stomped by Deep Blue but we're talking about the very best micro as the >poll is worded. I still believe micro's do a LOT of things better but >Deep Blue's hardware is awesome. My best guess is that Deep blue is >about >150 points better which means it would win even short matches almost >every >time. However I concede ignorance in this matter. Since this is a >guess >and nothing more, if it were somehow proved I was off by 100 points in >either direction I would not be surprised. > >By the way, in my opinion there is probably only a small amount of >intransitivity between humans and computers. Hi Don: Interesting concept you have here: intransitivity and, implicitly, his contrary, transitivity. Only I would like to add that both things maybe works differently according to which level human oposition belongs. I mean, a computer 100 point better than the average computers is a lot stronger and above human average results against average computers than the 100 points would indicate. And vice versa, if average computer gets -let us say- only 15% of wins against GM, a computer 100 point stronger in comparison with the average computer will not get a proportionally better result against GM, but a lot less. This is just a guess based in the premise that each pont computer win thought better programming means increments of strenght that are relative to the kind of oposition they get. So, the old problem of the relation between the Elo of a program pitted against computer Vs Elo won against human is perhaps even more complex that already seemed to be. Fernando If Deep Blue turns >out to be 150 points stronger against the best computers then then I'm >guessing (again, just a guess) it will still be AT LEAST 100 points >stronger >in human play (than the micros.) > >- 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.