Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:23:35 08/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2001 at 02:04:15, Hristo wrote:
>On August 01, 2001 at 23:39:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 01, 2001 at 17:29:54, Andrew Williams wrote:
>>
>>>The game went:
>>>
>>>[Event "ICS Rated standard match"]
>>>[Site "204.178.125.65"]
>>>[Date "2001.08.01"]
>>>[Round "-"]
>>>[White "tartaruga"]
>>>[Black "Dreev"]
>>>[Result "0-1"]
>>>[WhiteElo "2568"]
>>>[BlackElo "2835"]
>>>[TimeControl "7200+10"]
>>>
>>>1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bc4 e6 7. Be3 Be7
>>>8. f4 O-O 9. Qf3 Nxd4 10. Bxd4 Qa5 11. O-O e5 12. Be3 exf4 13. Qxf4 Be6 14.
>>>Nd5 Bxd5 15. exd5 Rae8 16. b4 Qc7 17. Bd3 Nd7 18. Bd4 Ne5 19. Qg3 g6 20.
>>>Bb5 Rc8 21. c3 f5 22. a4 Kh8 23. a5 a6 24. Be2 Bf6 25. Qf4 Qg7 26. Rad1 Nf7
>>>27. b5 axb5 28. Bxb5 Be5 29. Qd2 Rc7 30. Rde1 Rfc8 31. Re2 Qf6 32. Qb2 Kg7
>>>33. Bxe5 Nxe5 34. c4 Re7 35. Kh1 Rcc7 36. Rfe1 f4 37. Re4 g5 38. Qd4 Rc5
>>>39. Qf2 Rc8 40. Qd2 Rcc7 41. Qe2 Ng6 42. Rf1 Rxe4 43. Qxe4 Re7 44. Qf3 Qb2
>>>45. Rg1 Qd2 46. Qg4 Kf6 47. h3 Qxa5 48. Qc8 Re1 49. Kh2 Rxg1 50. Qe6+ Kg7
>>>51. Kxg1 Qa1+ 52. Kh2 Qe5 53. Qd7+ Kh6 54. Kh1 Qe1+ 55. Kh2 Qg3+ 56. Kh1 f3
>>>57. gxf3 Qe1+ 58. Kh2 Qf2+ 59. Kh1 Qxf3+ 60. Kh2 Qe2+ 61. Kg1 Qe1+ 62. Kh2
>>>Qe2+ 63. Kg1 Nf4 64. Qg4 Qe1+ 65. Kh2 Qf2+ 66. Kh1 b6 67. h4 Qxh4+ 68.
>>>Qxh4+ gxh4 69. Kg1 Kg5 70. Kf2 Kf5 71. Kf3 Ke5 72. Kg4 h3 73. Kg3 Kd4 74.
>>>Kh2 Nd3 75. Kxh3 Ne5 76. Kh4 Nxc4
>>>{tartaruga resigns} 0-1
>>>
>>>
>>>Deep Fritz was on a Dual 1GHz PIII
>>>
>>>Andrew
>>
>>
>>Maybe Frans will get off that marketing hype crap and stop with the
>>"deep fritz is as good or better than Deep Blue and is ready for Kramnik"
>>junk now.
>
>Why should he stop? He probably doesn't care that it is _only_ hype, so long as,
>he makes money at the end! Why should his _hype_ be considered more _junk_ than
>IBM's hype?
>
>cheers Bob. ;-)
>hristo
My problem with his statement is that I _know_ that he knows it is false, if
he really made it in the first place. He _knows_ because he has played them
more than once OTB at ACM/WCCC events. And once you see the machine, and its
analysis and speed, you _know_ what it is capable of. And once you watch it
do its thing to other computers over and over, no one in their right mind would
think that with a factor of at least 100X slower machine, they would really be
anywhere near "equal" with the thing. I don't believe my program would compete
with someone 10x or 100x faster. Because I understand the dynamics of the tree
search, and how important the search space volume really is.
It boils down to "market-speak" or hyperbole. And as a scientist, I don't have
a lot of love for that stuff. I prefer technical details, not hand-waving.
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.