Author: Howard Exner
Date: 18:13:32 04/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 1998 at 20:12:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... IMHO you should change "no one's *close* to GM yet" to no one's close to a super GM yet. I believe that the top micro's on this fast hardware play at a weak GM level (2450 - 2550).
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.