Author: Amir Ban
Date: 13:39:06 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 14:49:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 17, 2000 at 14:54:18, Amir Ban wrote: > >>On January 16, 2000 at 21:34:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 16, 2000 at 14:28:09, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>The only way to convince me that deep thought i better than the commercial of >>>>today is to do public games of deep thought against the commercial of today. >>>> >>>>I am not convinced by the performance of deep thought against humans because >>>>I believe that humans know today better how to play against computers. >>>> >>>>I am also not sure if 2550 of 10 years ago is the same as 2550 of today when >>>>many IM's and GM's learn from computers. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>It was 2650, not 2550, over 24 consecutive games. I don't think it dates back >>>to 10 years, but don't have my ICCA journals handy to see when they were awarded >>>Fredkin II. I think about 5 years ago roughly... >> >>2551 USCF >> >>(http://aaai.org/Magazine/Issues/Vol10/10-02/Berliner.pdf) >> >>Amir > > >That had nothing to do with Fredkin. Fredkin stage II required "at least 2550 >over 24 consecutive games". Not 2550 USCF or FIDE. DT had a 2650 rating over >it's "best 24 consecutive games vs GM players". > The link is the reference. It's Berliner's report on the Fredkin stage II prize. As I've already said here once, there's no way to make you see something you don't want to. It's deja vu anyway. This conversation took place two months ago, only then you were lobbying for a 2600 DT rating. >2551 was for deep thought from Day 1. Cray Blitz's USCF rating is only 2258, >because it played in only two human events (the 1981 Mississippi closed >championship tournament which it won with a perfect score). I doubt anyone >would think it was 2258 in 1986 on the XMP, or in 1989 on the C90. But >original ratings included _all_ games including the ones where a program did >badly. Which included Cray Blitz losing two games due to a horrible parallel >search bug in late 1984 in the only other event it played in. There were lots >of versions of deep thought, some with horrible bugs. Some without. Using a >rating that spans all of those is not very accurate, although it is remarkable >to me that they sustained 2551 with some of the glitches they had... Another pompous irrelevancy. Amir
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.