Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:32:41 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 17:48:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 14:51:41, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On July 18, 2000 at 14:36:00, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On July 18, 2000 at 13:39:01, Jerry Adams wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I doubt if DeepBlue with all it's billions of calculations per second could >>>>score much better than DeepJunior at Dortmund. Seem it is a bad day for the >>>>Advocates of "Hardware is everything" Theory. Deepblue could probally Easily >>>>Defeat DeepJr in a Match, but against humans the story is different. I hope >>>>programmers Continue to Develope Software and not sit back lazily waiting for >>>>Hardware to do all the work. >>> >>>When I saw the thread title I thought you might have gotten the title backwards, >>>since Junior had huge hardware at Dortmund. But then I saw the reference to DB >>>and I said, "Oh, that." >>> >>>I think all that was proven here is that a computer can do well in a tournament >>>with GM's. I haven't looked at all the games, but from the results it seems >>>like the computer belonged in the tournament. That's a big thing. >>> >>>Nothing about DB is proven, because the DB matches were short, Kasparov was >>>stressed, and the computer arrived out of nowhere and vanished without a trace. >>>It could be a lot better or worse than we perceive it now, and we have no >>>practical way of knowing which. >>> >>>Junior at least seems to be willing to come out and play, and I commend Amir for >>>this. >>> >>>The fact is though that Junior was on some great hardware, so I don't know if >>>you are proving your point by bringing up the issue of hardware, or disproving >>>it. >> >>One way, though one would have to have the accurate move times to do so, would >>be to simply take an inferior machine and see if it is capable of finding the >>moves played in the games. One wouldn't be able to calculate any Elo ratings >>with this, but it would be interesting to see how many moves were made possible >>due to the hardware. If Amir has this available, I think it would be wonderful >>if he could post this (the time per move for both sides). >> >> Albert Silver >> > > >Anecdotal evidence also suggests that hardware is very important. Each time >I upgraded on ICC, from the P6/200, to the 4 X p6/200, to the quad xeon/450, >to the quad xeon/550... GM players would comment on its newfound skill... >IE, "what did you do to it recently? It has really improved... etc..." > >And hardware would be the only change of any significance, and they could "feel >the difference..." > >I'd think an 8x700mhz machine would be very strong feeling... I have no doubt, but they are commenting on Blitz play for the most part. How big a difference would this represent in 40/2 as was the case for DJ? I'm sure it is _much_ stronger but I think that human players do a heck of a lot more catching up with more time on the clock. Albert Silver > > > > >>> >>>bruce
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.