Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 10:15:12 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 13:07:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 12:55:43, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On October 11, 2002 at 08:14:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 11, 2002 at 08:11:58, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On October 11, 2002 at 08:02:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 11, 2002 at 00:59:36, Slater Wold wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Slate, everyone recognizes that deep thought was an >>>>>absolute beginner. Do you agree? >>>> >>>>No >>>> >>>>I did not say that deep thought was an absolute beginner. >>>>I believe that everybody is going to disagree with you about it. >>>> >>>>I believe that everybody's opinion is that deep thought can beat most of the >>>>humans of today. >>>> >>>>i believe that everybody's opinion is that Deep thought can achieve today more >>>>than fide rating of 2000 against humans and beginners cannot do it. >>> >>>2000 is beginners level to me. >>> >>>Look deep thought: >>> >>>5k2/7R/4P2p/5K2/p1r2P1p/8/8/8 b LCTFIN04 (...h3!) >> >>I wouldn't call it lying but you try to make DT weaker than it really is by >>posting positions where the problem of the repetition recognition shows up. I >>call it manipulating people though. Not very scientific.. it more resembles a >>mud fight. >> >>Sargon > >the trivial thing about deep thought which people forget is that it >got tens of millions of nodes a second. No one has problems believing that >the current software generation is annihilating that. > >This despite that it was gettting way more nodes a second than current software. > >Why would beating DB a problem then? Because DB(2) has nothing in common with DT(2). It would be like comparing Fritz 1.0 on 1992(?) hardware to the current Fritz that plays against Kramnik.
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.