Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:51:27 07/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2000 at 21:12:20, Jorge Pichard wrote: >On July 07, 2000 at 20:55:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 07, 2000 at 20:50:27, Jorge Pichard wrote: >> >>>On July 07, 2000 at 18:14:02, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On July 07, 2000 at 18:03:43, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 07, 2000 at 17:55:28, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 07, 2000 at 17:07:59, Jerry Adams wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I have heard people say that against humans processor is not that significant >>>>>>>after a certain speed >>>>>> >>>>>>I would simply put it this way Deep blue would have never won the match against >>>>>>Kasparov, using the primergy Netserver that is being used for Deep Junior. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Rebel beat Deep Blue using a less powerful computer than the original Deep Blue. >>>>>Therefore, it was not the Software, but the brute power that counted the most. >>>> >>>>*sigh* >>>> >>>>You're comparing apples to airplanes (and calling them sailboats). >>>> >>>>I hope the CCC community has the... humanity... to avoid replying to your post. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>>Mr Tom I was not comparig apples to airplanes ( and calling them sailboats), >>>around 1 year ago there was a planned commercial version of Deep Blue to be >>>offered for sale to the public, and they were testing it against different >>>People and P.C. chess softwares, of course it was using a didderent time >>>control; but the case in point was that Rebel played a blitz game against it and >>>beat it, also Chess Tiger played another Blitz game and drew against this >>>planned commercial version of Deep Blue, which was supposed to be on sale but >>>never materialized. >> >> >>_All_ of the above is _wrong_. They played against a web-based program that >>was not "deep blue" at all. It was a demo machine set up for marketing demos >>at the request (demand) of IBM marketing. It had _nothing_ to do with a >>potential commercial version, nor the version that played against Kasparov. >> >Mr Hyatt thank for clarifying the exact event, I was under the impression that >the demo machine was using a replica of the Deep Blue. > >Pichard. > No. It was a single-processor version of the DB chip, but with things removed to make it 'stateless' so it could play via a web browser. Hsu thought it was sub-2200 in strength... >>This was all covered here before, so I assume this is intended to be a troll? >>] >> >> >> >>> >>>PS: I understood the question perfectly, my comparison was not based on a >>>nonexpert opinion, I am a programmer with 15 years of experience working for >>>microsoft, I just have not found the time to program my own chess program, >>>probably due to the fact that I don't have the time that is required to write >>>a debugged chess program. I did not like your comments of accusing me to make a >>>Doesn't Follow Fallacy such as " comparing apples-and oranges" argument. >>> >>>Pichard.
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.