Author: blass uri
Date: 06:59:20 10/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 1999 at 09:49:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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?? Here is the relevant position that Deep thought did the last mistake against mephisto. 8/2n5/1pk5/p3Q3/5P2/PB3q2/1PK5/8 b - - 0 1 black is a pawn down but it is clear that after 58...Nd5 black is losing the pawn endgame when maybe black has chances to draw with different moves. top programs understand that there is a big difference in evaluation against Nd5. Uri
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.