Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:53:55 10/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 1999 at 02:20:49, Ed Schröder 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... >> >> >>> >>> >>>>You really have this 'envy' thing going, don't you? >>>> >>> >>>Yes. I wish I could make things up as easily as you do. It's an asset in some >>>situations. >>> >>>Amir >> >> >>I was thinking about your tremendous envy of the DB project. You have taken >>every chance possible to 'do them in'. from your mistaken statements about >>their output, to whatever. > >I can't remember any "mistaken statements" from Amir regarding DB. > >>your loss, not mine... > >Come on, some of us are just curious, don't confuse that with envy. > >Ed How about this: "this output looks suspicious and really needs an explanation by IBM" after he had been told _exactly_ how normal this output looked. I even posted _identical_ output from Crafty that showed exactly the same kind of 'panic time usage'. After a year of talking about this, with many explaining that the output was not 'unusualy' (just not well-formatted) he gave up on it. There was his demand that IBM drop the "Junior" in "Deep Blue Junior". As for curious, asking questions is one thing that a curious person would do. I don't recall your making the kind of statements he has made.
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.