Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 01:42:33 11/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2001 at 18:58:57, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >On November 17, 2001 at 18:24:20, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >>On November 17, 2001 at 16:02:49, Joshua Lee wrote: >> >>>Even without the massive hardware and despite how much slower it would be is >>>there enough knowledge about how Deep thought/ Blue Played to re-create it? >>>How much time and money would it take? >> >>Hi Joshua, >>I think that as already stated somewhere in this forum , the D.B. algorithms , >>evals and so on are pretty standard ones and to be more clear are a bit outdated >>since that project was stopped on '97 by the IBM. >>The great "plus" of D.B. was and still is the hardware base of calculus with >>specialized chips capable to reach an outstanding value of 200 >>Megapositions/second . >> >>Kind regards, >>Otello. > >Hi Otello, the eval of DB is standard and even outdated? how you know certainly >this? >I think it was also stated somewhere in this forum that db eval was very complex >and knowing a lot of a lot, just not enough tested. They even had a gm there, >and a lot of speed, so why the eval could have been simple? I don't think so. I didn't tell that was *simple* but just *standard* , the true novelty of it derives from the fact that is implemented on hardware so you can add an huge bunch of functions to it: I meant that no revolutionary s/w algorithms to optimize the search were implemented in D.B. The real gain would be to marry the hardware of D.B. to the software algoritms of Fritz7 or Chess Tiger IMHO. Regards.
This page took 0.01 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.