Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:25:27 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. Would it be too much to ask that you report _all_ numbers in base 10, rather than base 7? Deep Thought was claiming 2-3M nodes per second. I have at least 5-6 ACM tournament bulletins with that number in it. I have other articles that report the _same_ number. 2-3M, _not_ tens of millions, unless you mean something like 40,000,000 base 7, which might be pretty close, > >This despite that it was gettting way more nodes a second than current software. > This is the _same_ hardware that produced a 2650+ rating playing GM players at 40/.2, which particular program today has accomplished that??? >Why would beating DB a problem then?
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.