Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:08:36 07/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2000 at 16:06:40, blass uri wrote: >On July 28, 2000 at 15:26:43, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >[snip] >>And this way is not feasible, so it's not effective either. Besides, it would >>give at best a new global calibration, but wouldn't tell us in the future if >>ratings based on comp-comp are also valid for human-comp. Are they? The >>anti-computer games of Frankfurt and Dortmund wouldn't have been helped by a >>faster search > >I disagree. > >Junior could find Bh6 against piket if it has more time and in this case piket >could not get the position that junior does not understand(in this case less >time could also help Junior but I think that seeing deeper is more productive >than counter productive). > >More time could probably also help Junior against kramnik because a few plies >after Kh8 it could see a drop in the evaluation and these few plies include >captures that are not quiet moves. But according to Amir, longer times sometimes hurts also, since his laptop got the right answer while the 8 CPU behemoth got the wrong one on a few occasions. On the other hand, I rather suspect that the extra horsepower helps a lot more often than it hurts. ;-) On the other, other hand, since chess is an exponential process, it would take a lot more CPU power to make a significant difference in playing strength, and (in fact) such a machine does not exist. For the architecture of the Deep Junior program, there is no faster machine on the planet than the one that was used.
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.