Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:49:53 10/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 1999 at 04:13:42, blass uri wrote: >On October 16, 1999 at 22:52:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 16, 1999 at 18:35:11, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 1999 at 17:16:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 1999 at 15:43:59, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 16, 1999 at 01:29:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 15, 1999 at 23:55:47, walter irvin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>does anyone care to speculate what elo the deep blue that defeated kasparov was >>>>>>>playing at . i know it was too few games to pin down an exact elo . does anyone >>>>>>>believe a micro program like fritz ect could win 1 in 5 games vs db ?? if db was >>>>>>>on icc could it be beaten at blitz by ANY of the players there ??? i'm just >>>>>>>curious as to what others think about this . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I would speculate, and it is _real_ speculation, that it was in the 2750-2850 >>>>>>range. Based on lots of things including deep thought performing at 2600 over >>>>>>25 games to get the Fredkin 2 prize, plus beating kasparov. Whether it is >>>>>>stronger than Kasparov or not is a good question. It is clearly close enough >>>>>>to worry about. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You were told here only a week that this was for 2500 USCF (i.e. about ELO >>>>>2400), and you acknowledged this information. How did you manage to forget it so >>>>>fast ? >>>> >>>>the requirement was to exceed 2500 USCF. they hit right at 2600 USCF. I >>>>didn't acknowledge anything different. And _nothing_ I know of says that >>>>USCF = FIDE+100. In fact, Ken Sloan (in the CIS department) did a detailed >>>>study and found that above 2400 or so the ratings are far closer than that >>>> >>>>He published that in r.g.c.c about 2 years ago. It hasn't changed that I >>>>know of. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>This is not the first time that when corrected on a piece of Deep Blue >>>>>information, you acknowledged mistake, then immediately went back to repeating >>>>>it. >>>> >>>>This is not the first time you make an error in a statement, then refer to >>>>the original error as fact. DT had a rating of about 2600 USCF over 25 >>>>consecutive games. You can find the exact details in the JICCA announcement >>>>where they were awarded the prize. >>>> >>> >>>Nice try. It was in fact USCF 2551. >> >>ok... what does that change in my post you jumped in on? I was over on DT's >>rating by 49 points. Has little effect on my reasoning for DB's rating... > >I think that today humans are better in playing against computers so in order >to learn about deep thought's ability I prefer to look at games against >computers. > >I found that Deep thought lost against mephisto in 1989 >and I quess that cray blitz (without bugs) has a good chance to beat >mephisto of 1989 100:0(I understood that it had 100% score against Genius1 and >Genius1 had chances only when Cray blitz was significantly slowed down). Anybody can lose 1 game. DT lost 1 game vs fritz in 1995. That and the loss to mephisto are the _only_ two games that DT lost vs computers over a 15 year span... which is amazing. >I also doubt if top programs are going to lose 1 game out of 100 against >mephisto of 1989. I don't follow. You are comparing today's programs vs DT of 1989? In any case I would bet that they would lose 1 of 100. I have seen more than one reported loss of today's programs to things like the old Fidelity Mach III. No current program will lose many games, but all will lose some. A 2200 program isn't going to get murdered by a 2500 program. Losing 1 of 10 would not be a surprise. > >I know also that deep thought lost to Fritz3(p90) and drew with wchess(p90). >of course deep thought won most of the games against computers but >based on the games that I saw I was not impressed by deep thought's ability. > >I see stupid mistakes of deep thought against mephisto in the game that it lost. >Deep thought against mephisto let mephisto to trade to a simple won pawn >endgame. > >I tried some commercial programs and they play better. >They see a big drop in the evaluation after deep thought's last mistake. > >Uri I suspect it would see far more big drops in eval after _their_ mistakes??
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.