Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:29:47 08/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 2002 at 00:29:06, Mark Schreiber wrote: >On August 18, 2002 at 21:56:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 18, 2002 at 17:57:11, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On August 18, 2002 at 14:50:19, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On August 18, 2002 at 12:48:02, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>3. There are a lot of tatical/strategic holes in DT games that modern >>>>>commercial programs do not make. >>>> >>>>The commercial programs may have a lot of tactical/strategical holes >>>>that DT didn't had. But we can't check those. >>>> >>>>>4. Today's programs would crush DT. >>>> >>>>How can this possibly be 'an observation'. It's your personal >>>>opinion, not a verifyable fact. >>>> >>>>>5. The GM's that DJ, DF, CT, Rebel, Hiarcs, The King have played recently >>>>>would crush DT. >>>> >>>>Same remark as last one. >>>> >>>>>6. DT would have no chance in a match with a 2700 GM (today) that had 100 >>>>>games of preparation, Rebel played this GM even for 4 games. >>>> >>>>And again >>>> >>>>>7. I am pretty sure I could crush DT today. >>>> >>>>And again...sigh. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>GCP >>> >>>Yes, this is just my opinion, post I was responding to voiced an opinion and I >>>posted a different one. However, DT did not score 2650 against GM's, I went >>>back and checked the PGN's, they were FIDE/USCF rated and many were IM's and >>>some FM's. >>> >>>I can live with differing opinions, but saying it is just my opinion, does not >>>make it wrong. :) >>> >>>Chris >> >> >>Sorry but you are _wrong_ above. The Fredkin prize rules are still available >>on the net. They _specifically_ required that a program produce a 2550 >>performance rating, over 25 consecutive games, against _only_ GM opponents. >>No IMs. No FMs. _just_ GM players. This doesn't mean that DT didn't play >>FM/IM players in tournaments, but those games did _not_ count in the fredkin >>prize committee analysis. The rules said that the prize would be awarded >>when 25 consecutive games at 40/2 were played against GM players and the >>performance rating was 2550 or greater. The DB team we free to pick any >>25 consecutive games they wanted, but they could not omit any except for >>those before the 25 they chose, or those after. >> >>Please don't try to rewrite history. The result of the Fredkin prize awards >>is already well-documented... > >With hindsight the Fredkin prize turned out to be a fraud. The Fredkin prize was >awarded to the deep blue team for beating Kasparov after only 6 games. What >happened to the 25 games? What a disgrace! The $10,000 prize needed 25 games why >not the $100,000 prize? To prove you are a World Champion should take at least >as many games as proving you are a Grandmaster. Kasparov was willing to play >again. IBM knew they could not beat Kasparov again. The $100,000 award should >have waited till they won 25 games. >Mark There was no 25 games for the stage III prize. Stage 1 was for the first computer to become a chess master. That was awarded to Belle. Stage 2 was for the first computer to become a GM. This was defined as a 2550+ rating over 25 consecutive games vs GM players, at 40/2hr time controls. Deep Thought won this. Stage 3 was for the first computer to beat the world champion in a match. It was originally set at 12 games but the fredkin prize committee at Carnegie-Melon decided that _any_ match vs the current world champion would suffice so long as it was more than a couple of games. Deep Blue 2 won this.
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.