Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:04:16 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 11:36:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On July 08, 2002 at 06:25:57, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>
>>On July 08, 2002 at 02:28:03, Slater Wold wrote:
>>
>>>On July 08, 2002 at 00:32:42, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 06, 2002 at 20:15:06, stuart taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I suspect that search may see that the right move help to push the opponent king
>>>>>>closer to the corner relative to the wrong moves and it may be enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, that looks like the best thing to try and work on, doesn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>If not, can I ask two questions?:
>>>>>1)What should be done during the near future to push computer elo forward as
>>>>>much as possible?
>>>>>2)If Deeper blue was really much stronger than todays tops, what was that due
>>>>>to? Better long-term planning? Seeing deeper?
>>>>>S.Taylor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Huge speed.
>>>>
>>>>It was doing most things worse than the best micro programs, but it was doing it
>>>>so fast that it was eventually stronger.
>>>>
>>>>Hum... Let me rephrase for the sensitive people out there. There was nothing
>>>>Deep Blue did better than the best micro programs. But it was so fast that it
>>>>allowed it to hide its defficiencies.
>>>>
>>>>Shit. That's not very diplomatic either. Let's try again: Deep Blue was build
>>>>around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that
>>>>nobody noticed until their creators published their paper.
>>>>
>>>>Oops... OK, once again:
>>>>
>>>>Bob likes Deep Blue a lot, and that should be a reason good enough to convince
>>>>you that it was well designed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe ;-)
>>>
>>>I too am a DB fan. Just like Bob.
>>>
>>>But I actually agree with you here. I don't think DB did anything
>>>*spectacular*.
>>>
>>>But I also know that Program X will be a _LOT_ stronger on hardware 100,000x
>>>times faster than anyone else has. No matter how horrible the software side is.
>>
>>Sheesh, you guys! Of course they did something spectacular! But it's the
>>software/hardware package that plays chess, not just the software alone! And
>>they didn't buy the hardware around the corner, as you do with your PC. They
>>designed it!
>>
>>It's obvious that you guys seem to honour work in the software more than work in
>>the hardware. Adding feature X in the software is something great, but designing
>>DB's hardware which was Y time faster (Y being 200 and more) is "just faster
>>hardware". A bit unfair. :)
>>
>>Sargon
>
>
>OOhhhhh... a good "counterpoint". But it will fall on deaf ears, I
>predict. After all, DB was inferior in every way except for speed and
>results. And we all know results don't mean a thing.. it is _how_ you get
>those results that count... At least to some, apparently...
I think that in order to be objective one has to notice that:
1) Deep Blue was a terrific hardware that has been able to achieve an historical
performance.
2) On closer examination the algorithms used were not superior than the ones
used in micro programs.
I have repeated 1 and 2 several times now. I think I should move on to more
productive tasks.
Christophe
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.