Author: Chris Carson
Date: 11:11:01 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 14:04:16, Christophe Theron wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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 Convinced me. :) When Chess Tiger gets to be 200M nps (Chess Tiger nps that is), no human will win a single game! :)
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.