Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:57:55 08/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2001 at 17:41:13, Derrick Daniels wrote: >On August 29, 2001 at 14:03:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 13:52:33, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2001 at 12:52:15, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>>This sentence DOES say a lot, doesn't it: >>>> >>>>"By the summer of 1990--by which time three of the original Deep Thought team >>>>had joined IBM--Deep Thought had achieved a 50 percent score in 10 games played >>>>under tournament conditions against grandmasters and an 86 percent score in 14 >>>>games against international masters." >>>> >>>>That was 7 years before, and many-fold slower hardware (and much weaker >>>>software, no doubt), than what played Kasparov in 1997. >>> >>>No >>>This sentence tells me nothing new. >>> >>>I know that humans at that time did not know how to play against computers like >>>they know today. >>> >>>Today programs got clearly better results than deep thought >>>and there is more than one case when they got >2700 performance inspite of >>>the fact that the opponents could buy the program they played against them >>>something that Deep thought's opponents could not do. >> >>Deep thought produced a rating of 2655 over 25 consecutive games against a >>variety of opponents. None of them were "inexperienced" in playing against >>computers. Byrne. Larson. Browne. You-name-it. That argument doesn't hold >>up under close scrutiny. In some ways, it appears that the GMs of today are >>prepared far worse than the GMs of 1992 were prepared to play computers. >> >>In 1992 GMs _were_ encountering computers in various tournaments, from the >>World Open, to the US Open, right on down to the state level. Today computers >>are not playing in any of those... There were dozens of deep thought games on >>the internet, so the humans had good ideas about the programs strengths and >>weaknesses. > > > >Yes but in 1992 computers were laughed at, they were so weak, it's no comparison >to today's programs and you know it. > > I don't know what planet you live on, but here on planet Earth, the GMs were not producing positive scores against Deep Thought. They were _not_ laughing at it. PC programs? lots of laughs. But not vs Deep Thought. >> >>DT was just very, very strong. And DB/DB2 were both _far_ stronger. >> >> >>> >>>Uri
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.