You mean like? Or like like...
Deep blue or Houdini?
Sort:
like like.....
As far as which is stronger? Houdini's about 500 Elo points stronger. What does that translate to? Houdini should score about 95% maybe?
And oh, you mean LIKE............ I got you
MrDamonSmith wrote:
As far as which is stronger? Houdini's about 500 Elo points stronger. What does that translate to? Houdini should score about 95% maybe?
How did you figure "500 elo"?
As a programmer, I like Houdini more as this is a program
As a guy with Asperger's I like Houdini more as it was made by one gifted programmer while Deep Blue was an effort of a huge group of scientists. I prefer lone geniuses over groups 
Oecleus wrote:
How did you figure "500 elo"?
Kasparov played it 12 games and the total score was 6.5 - 5.5 Kasparovs favor. With that score it's safe to estimate Deep Blues level at maybe about 2750. I believe most Gm's agree that Kaspy was better even though he lost the 2nd match. But IBM didn't have anything to gain from letting a 3rd match happen.
Oecleus wrote:
How did you figure "500 elo"?
Kasparov played it 12 games and the total score was 6.5 - 5.5 Kasparovs favor. With that score it's safe to estimate Deep Blues level at maybe about 2750. Houdini is around the 3250 area. I believe most Gm's agree that Kaspy was better even though he lost the 2nd match. But IBM didn't have anything to gain from letting a 3rd match happen.
MrDamonSmith wrote:
Oecleus wrote:
How did you figure "500 elo"?
Kasparov played it 12 games and the total score was 6.5 - 5.5 Kasparovs favor. With that score it's safe to estimate Deep Blues level at maybe about 2750. Houdini is around the 3250 area. I believe most Gm's agree that Kaspy was better even though he lost the 2nd match. But IBM didn't have anything to gain from letting a 3rd match happen.
I think a 3rd match would put kasparov even more in the hole. I'm just curious how accurate this 3250 elo is, seems like it has to have factored in some human vs computer games for this to be at all accurate. do you know how they made sure it was accurate?
As i know kasparov said hircus is much better than deep blue hircus is strong engine but not better than houdini see the wiki comments about this :Deep Blue, with its capability of evaluating 200 million positions per second, was the fastest computer that ever faced a world chess champion. Today, in computer chess research and matches of world class players against computers, the focus of play has often shifted to software chess programs, rather than using dedicated chess hardware. Modern chess programs like Rybka, Deep Fritz or Deep Junior are more efficient than the programs during Deep Blue's era. In a recent match, Deep Fritz vs. world chess champion Vladimir Kramnik in November 2006, the program ran on a personal computer containing two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs, capable of evaluating only 8 million positions per second, but searching to an average depth of 17 to 18 plies in the middlegame thanks to heuristics.[20]
do you like deep blue or houdini ?