Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Better poll question on DB

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 17:12:27 04/23/98

Go up one level in this thread


On April 23, 1998 at 09:20:34, Don Gaetke wrote:

>
>On April 23, 1998 at 08:13:32, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On April 22, 1998 at 23:56:17, Don Gaetke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On April 22, 1998 at 22:10:34, Joe McCarron wrote:
>>>
>>>>I wonder what computer and software will be the first Chess World
>>>>Champion.  Does anyone want to venture a guess when that will be?
>>>>Evidently IBM has no interest in trying to attain the title for deep
>>>>blue.
>>>>
>>>>in response to your post If we had better data on how well micros do
>>>>against GM's, then the answer to the current poll question would provide
>>>>the answer to your poll question.
>>>>
>>>>It is beyond my unserstandign why we don't have better information on
>>>>how well these computers do against GM's.  I mean we all know IBM was
>>>>afraid to play Deep blue against GM's more regularly but these other
>>>>software programs would seem to jump at the chance to butt heads with
>>>>GM's.  What is the hold up?
>>>
>>>In DBll's case as with the previous programs DB,DTll, and DT, there has
>>>always been a strong need to keep things "hush, hush", in order to have
>>>the greatest chance to prove the point that IBM had something unique
>>>among computers.  It was not advantageous to disclose any performance
>>>than was absolutely neccessary.
>>>
>>>It may yet be that the micro's will threaten the esteem of IBM's  not so
>>> minor accomplishment.  After all if a PC can beat any top 5 player in
>>>the world in a real match, then it takes away from IBM's SuperComputing
>>>achievement in the eyes of the general public.
>>>
>>>Don
>>>
>>>P.S. CCC is such a breath of fresh air.  :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>A couple of points:  (1) Until the "IBM" days, information about the
>>internals was readily available.  A chapter of a book here, a journal
>>article there...  chiptest/deep thought/deep thought 2 and so forth were
>>well written-up.  (2) today, there's little chance of a micro beating a
>>top-5 GM in a match.  It is unlikely in a single game, unless the match
>>is long enough (and I'm *not* talking about blitz games, there they have
>>a chance)..
>
>Actually, I was referring to the "performance" on the board.
>Information on DeepeBlue2 as a chess player has been scant, which is
>consistant with the overall history of the project.
>
>Average GM's are already threatened today at tournament level, in 6
>months to a year the top 5 will be as well thanks to some serious speed
>increases just over the horizon.
>
>Don



IMHO, you should change 6 months to a year to 6-10 years.  The Micros
are *not* a factor of two away from playing evenly with GM players yet.
Not even close...

We already have a PII/400 at the office.  Intel says 450 late this
year, and (possibly) Merced next year.  We already have machines as
fast as merced... they are spelled "alpha"...  no one's *close* to a
GM yet...



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.