Author: blass uri
Date: 16:32:48 10/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 1999 at 18:47:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 17, 1999 at 10:58:33, blass uri wrote: > >>On October 17, 1999 at 10:05:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >><snipped> >> >>>How so? Dlugy is getting drubbed by computers on ICC. If he exaggerates >>>downward, he only makes himself look worse, which I doubt he would do. >> >>The games on ICC are not tournament time control so it has nothing to do with >>the fact that Dlugy is getting drubbed by computers on ICC. >> > >sure it does. You just haven't heard the comments he has made, since you >don't visit ICC. > > >>> >>>> Grandmaster Lev Albert said Deepblue was only "2500" do you believe >>>>that he is right? >>> >>>Sure... and then that puts the micros at a more realistic 2100 rating. >>>That makes perfect sense. >> >>Lev albert did not say that the difference between deepblue and micros against >>humans is 400 elo so you cannot learn that micros are 2100 from his words. >> >>Uri > > >If you believe him, then DT is 2500. we _know_ that DT won 9 of every 10 >games vs micros (long time controls, based on 10 years of ACM events). >what does 9/10 results say? nearly 400 rating points? > >Q.E.D. 1)I understood from odell hall that lev albert said that deep blue and not deep thought is 2500 elo(I believe deeper blue is clearly better). 2)The difference against humans is not the same as the difference against computers so you cannot learn from the rating of DT or DB and the results against micros about the rating of micros aghainst humans. Uri > >either he is wrong, or the micros are 2100. I don't believe micros are 2100 >players... I think they are 300-350 points higher. > >IE if you pick the right set of 25 consecutive games from deep thought, you get >a performance rating of about 2650. If you take _all_ games it played, >including early deep thought versions with bugs, you get 2551. All of these >are USCF ratings of course. Best guess is to subtract 50-60 to convert to FIDE. >Either is impressive. I do not know if deep thought has better results against humans in the last games that it played. You are probably right that the early deep thought had more bugs but humans did not know how to play against deep thought before 1990 when they knew better later. I know they won a tournament in 1989 with 6.5 out of 8 and with performance above 2600 when they did later only 2.5 out of 7 in a tournament (performance 2410). I read that they had better hardware and could see 10,000,000 positions per second the second tournament when in the first tournament of 1989 they could see less than 1/10 of it. They did better result later when they lost 2.5:1.5 agains bent lersan and won the danish team 3:1 in a tournament time control. 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.