Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: positions when deep thought blundered

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 10:33:55 08/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 21, 2002 at 07:49:10, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On August 20, 2002 at 20:27:18, martin fierz wrote:
>
>In these days all programs were so bad that games were decided by
>who didn't give away most pieces *usually*.
>
>So in that respect all games from then are biased as the level of
>*every* participant was 600 points lower than they are now.

That's wrong.  We had >2200 programs back then.  Belle was > 2200 in 1983.
In 1984 Cray Blitz was 2250 officially. Hitech was almost 2500 officially.
Deep Thought was >2600 officially.  All of those "official" ratings were earned
by playing only humans, comp vs comp was never rated officially by any
organization we dealt with...


>
>>this kind of test is fundamentally flawed by being 100% biased: you are
>>presenting a selection of positions where deep blue failed, in every single one.
>>of course, if a program of today solves a single one of these, be it by luck or
>>by better knowledge, it already looks good.
>>there are surely lots of positions where deep blue would look good in comparison
>>to a micro, but they are not included.
>>
>>for any meaningful comparison, you should get a set of test positions and run DB
>>and your micros over it. of course you can't do that now. but if you can't make
>>a meaningful comparison, the next best thing is to make none at all. not to make
>>a meaningless comparison :-)
>>
>>aloha
>>  martin



This page took 0.02 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.