Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:26:53 03/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2003 at 11:13:39, Chris Carson wrote: >On March 21, 2003 at 10:20:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 21, 2003 at 08:17:32, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On March 20, 2003 at 23:32:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 20, 2003 at 19:19:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 20, 2003 at 18:57:55, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 20, 2003 at 17:07:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>It's always interesting to read your short snippets about the history of >>>>>>computer chess. So when are you going to do us all a favor and write a book? :) >>>>>> >>>>>>>It was named "scratchy". It had the best win/lose record of anything that ever >>>>>>>played on >>>>>>>ICC. Something like 130 wins, 1 loss or some such. >>>>>> >>>>>>Even with all of the rating addicts who no-play other computers, no computer has >>>>>>surpassed this mark? >>>>> >>>>>I think that it is easy to surpass that mark. >>>>> >>>>>You only need to have friends that you can always beat and set a formula to play >>>>>only against your friends. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>Not if almost all the opponents are GM players. :) >>> >>>Hmm, wonder how DT would do against todays "inflated" GM's whe have better >>>anti-computer experience and knowledg? >> >>I'd suspect it would do the same as it did back then. The people that played it >>a lot already >>knew a lot about anti-computer play and they knew how dangerous the machine was. >> >>> Also wonder how DT would do against >>>players who use 1Ghz or faster comps/programs to help if they played DT today? >> >>No idea. Most of the DT games on the chess server were 2 12 type games, so >>using >>a computer to help the human would be doable... >> >> >> >>> >>>I am sure that DT would not be 130 points higher than anyone or thing on ICC >>>today. DT was ancient history and so was DB, good in their day, but that day is >>>past. You can see DBII at the Smithsonian here in DC. It is gone and in a >>>museum with all the other old relics. ;) >> >>The atomic bombs are "relics of the past" as well. >> >>But don't screw around with those relics. There's nothing else close to them, >>60 years after >>they were created. :) >> >>Old != obsolete. > >I do not think DT would do as well today, not even close. The Nukes of 60 years >ago were very dangerous, however, they are not even close to the strength of >todays bombs or even bombs from the mid 1950's. Technology moves foward. DT >was great in it's day, but that day is gone. You can see it for free here in DC >and go across the street and see the airplanes/bombs from the 1940's (still >dangerous) to the 1990's (very dangerous, no comparison, all obsolete). Same >for the Dino's (dangerous, but obsolete). :) > >old technology != current technology strength/destruction/performance That's a serious mistake to make. Back in my active Karate days, when we had an annual state event, there was one "old geezer" that was always there competing in the 3-4 degree black belt group. And several used to comment about "jeez, hope I don't draw him for a match, but I'll try to take it easy on him if I do..." That "old geezer" put more black belts flat on their backs than any other single competitor at the events. :) _never_ underestimate something just because it is "old". Deep Thought is _still_ faster than any PC program running today, although the PCs are getting closer every six months.
This page took 0.01 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.