Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:00:44 01/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2002 at 03:06:00, Joshua Lee wrote: > >This is mentioned in the Monty Newborn book Kasparov Versus Deep Blue >but there is no mention of the problem existing on move 16. It is impossible to >even guess How Deep Thought or DB would do against any Top program based on one >game this i realize then so is there a game which you think better to look at >for a good example of the Deep's definately being better than commercials? > >I had meant to ask you a few questions reguarding the Deep's In your opinion >what did they do better than current software and Reguarding a Performance list >of Computers. This list shows the performance Ratings of Deep Blue/Thought, the >ratings are low Low? Deep Thought produced a real USCF rating of 2650 over 25 consecutive games to win the stage III Fredkin prize. That is not very low. :) > but the game number is high compared with commercial software >Chess Tiger having 2788 against an average FIDE elo of 2497. Doesn't it make >sense that this is just too high and with the same number of games as for >instance Deep Thought of 1989 (29 games) that this rating would come down? >There is a problem with Chris Carson's list Fast games are included for deep >thought which most likely messes up the ratings. I don't give a lot of thought to any of those ratings, personally. Too many variables. > >Since DB and Deep Thought Searched differently if not better and their Search to >a Depth of 10 would be different from Crafty , Hiarcs , or Fritz how can one >know that just because i let these programs search the same number of nodes that >the results would show beyond doubt that one is better than the other? >Do i need to look twice as deep what are the guidelines? Totally unknown, unfortunately. It is hard to compare today's programs that use null-move to today's programs that don't, much less comparing to a 1989-era program that didn't... > >I can say that Commercial's are 100% better if they could find the Bishop Sac >that Kasparov Could've played then i can say well if the two were playing the >Commercial software would win ...and that's about the only decent example i have >but that sac turns out to be harder than most Nolot Positions due to the Depth >needed. I believe that bishop sac would have led to a draw, at least according to Murray Campbell DB was expecting the sac and had a 0.00 score... Kasparov wisely chose to avoid the complications... and his pawn move made the sacrifice threat real as after his move the sac actually has "teeth". > >Do you think Computers are IM or GM strength? I remember you placing then at >around 2450 or so within the past few years maybe i am quoting you wrong My opinion hasn't changed much. They may _possibly_ touch 2500 now, unless the opponent plays to the machines significant weaknesses. > >I could babble on but then i don't want to annoy. > >Thankyou
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.