Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:19:57 03/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 2002 at 02:12:08, Tanya Deborah wrote: >On March 25, 2002 at 18:02:20, Joshua Lee wrote: > >>You make a good point, Nigel short for instance was well over 100elo less than >>Kasparov, yet he was able to make it to a match and win one game on top of >>drawing quite a few. Kasparov won ofcourse but the point is that The best >>players lose, and even though you are 100 point underdog, you can win. >>I wouldn't count Kramnik out against Deep Fritz just yet as Kramnik is alot >>Stronger and i have yet to see him lose to Gulko. If someone can find one game >>do share. Also GM's , IM's and Master's Get smacked around all the time by >>Crafty yet I doubt Hyatt would say that his Program even on the fastest machines >>out there plays 100% over 2500. That really is the argument if Van Wely lost two >>games then therefore Rebel is as Strong. Rebel Lost two games as well and in >>both Losses Rebel Did NOT play 2500 Level chess, if so it wouldn't have lost. >>Weeks prior people said Van Wely Sucks because he lost to some 2500elo GM well >>last time i checked a GM only Beat's IM's 3 out of 5 Games so obviously the GM >>Knows Something that his opponent doesn't. Since the IM would win those 2 games >>does that mean he is as strong as the GM? The ratings might also have serious >>flaws , when Kramnik has a 2800+ elo and Fischer in 1972 was 2780 (he dropped 5 >>after the WC) do you really think that Kramnik is Stronger than Fischer at his >>peak? So on the same note 2697elo Van wely might only be 2500 who knows?? >> >>Blitz games are great at showing how strong a computer is tactically but 40/2 is >>a better time control, other than that What if any of these GM's took on any top >>program in a correspondence game? IM Mike Valvo took on Deep Thought and won >>both his games even though Deep Thought was looking at more positions than >>Deep Blue did in 40/2 against Kasparov! > > > > >I do not think that Deep Thought was looking more positions per second than Deep >Blue did in 1997 against Kasparov. Deep Blue can see 200.000.000 positions in a >second, and i think that Deep Thought only can see 2.000.000 positions per >second. There was a huge difference!! :-) > >Tanya. > The claim was more positions and not more positions per second. If Deep thought used more than 5 hours per move in that correspondence game then it clearly could look at more positions per move than deep blue at 3 minutes per move against kasparov. 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.