Author: David Dory
Date: 22:22:00 04/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 12, 2002 at 00:38:00, Dana Turnmire wrote: >Wouldn't a very fast stupid program be at a disadvantage to a much newer and >smarter one? From what I have read Deep Blue wasn't that sophisticated when it >came to forward pruning and general chess knowledge. Yeah, you're right, it _would_. But you read it wrong. GM Joel Benjamin wasn't giving DB team advice for no good reason! That's why DB caught on so well with everyone. It wasn't just fast, it was incredibly fast, and the algorithms and coding weren't just good, they were world class. ** I particularly like the part where Kramnik says Fritz gives better moves then Deep Blue did, WHEN KRAMNIK IS PLAYING Fritz7 ON A 600MHZ LAPTOP!!! <lol> What a comic our champ Kramnik has turned out to be! If he got hired by an abacus company, he'd soon be reported the BRAND NEW AND IMPROVED abacus was outperforming the latest from CRAY!! Like G.K. said, it's hype. It's a bunch of bullshit, but I admit I like it - it stirs up interest and money for the match. Go Fritz, go V.K.!! Can't wait!! Dave The better programming done today - Fritz7 certainly amongst them, I believe is indeed, overall, just a bit better than DB was. But it's like this, to me: You take a track athlete, and you give him better track shoes, better strength training. So he/she is just the very best - Gold medal winner for sure! Now you ask him/her to step up to the starting line and race - against a thoroughbred horse! Yeah, DB was the race horse, and no amount of slightly better software (or shoes) is going to equal it to the finish line. YMMV
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.