Author: John Hartmann
Date: 20:27:52 01/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
Just a brief thought on this topic. Would it really be safe to say that DB/DB2 would be that much more highly rated -- a distinct concept from _stronger_-- given that Deep Thought was something of an anomaly at the time, and that humans have learned how to play against silicon in such a fashion as to offset the gain in rating one would expect from the gain in strength? John Hartmann On January 21, 2000 at 15:34:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Here is the relevent quote from Hsu's book: > > After the Software Toolworks tournament... > > "The race for the Fredkin Intermediate Prize was officiall over. Deep > Thought performad at 2776 for this (USCF scale) event, slightly behind > the Hall of Fame result which was 2790 (hall of fame was another event it > played in). By 1998 DT had played 42 rated games, including all the > games played with serious bugs (US Open) was 2598. The best 25-game > performance over the period was 2655 or 155 points higher than the > requirements for the Fredkin Intermediate Prize" > >The opponents are listed in Monty's book... as are many of the game >scores... > >Remember that DT's official USCF rating was 2551, which is lower than the >performance rating for the same games, since the formula changes after >the first 24 games are played. However multiple 2700+ performance ratings >are remarkable. Particularly considering how much stronger DB/DB2 were than >deep thought...
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.