Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 08:02:39 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 09:46:36, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > e) Fritz is 100x stronger in endgame than deep blue, that kramnik is > even better than that says something about kramnik When did you ever see DB2 play an endgame? Once, maybe twice, and both of them it drew. In the first game it made some errors trading into a lost endgame because of bugs, which were fixed after game 2. > g) the focus of deep blue in 1997, to quote its marketing department was > not anything of above, but the number of nodes a second only. Deep blue > DID get a lot of nodes a second. This was the ONLY important thing in 1997 > for its marketing department. It seems you have forgotten this That was IBM marketing's focus, NOT the focus of the DB team. They were very clearly focused on better evaluation, and they only really got faster because of having more chips. > h) deep blue only played a few pathetic games against kasparov. Now again > kramnik we see play random lines within his own opening. Completely > lost lines kramnik plays. However kasparov has done an even worse job "Completely lost lines"? Maybe you have different definition for the word 'lost' than everyone else. > So based upon 6 pathetic games from kasparov, where only 1, game 6, > decided the match, you conclude that deep blue was ok? And you conclude that it was not ok, just because Kasparov didn't play 100%? You say Kramnik is playing 'completely lost' openings, but he is still WINNING against Fritz...What does that tell us about Fritz? > Hashtables give a few ply more (depending upon search depth) and > killermoves 20-40% node reduction. Yet Deep Blue didn't use any of > that in its hardware search. Isn't that pathetic? DB only didn't use hashtables in the chess processors. The processors were limited to an 8000-node null-window search for near-leaf positions of the tree. Do you really think hash table helps that kind of search as much as you claim? > Of course i have to add 2 notes. When you use them, your nodes a > second drops. Of course that note isn't proving that the real reason > to not use these *trivial* algorithms, was that the IBM directives > said that the only holy thing was a higher nodes a second... If they really cared so much about getting more NPS, they could have added more chess chips. >I could fill another entire list of things DB didn't do and DB did do And 90% of it would still be made up.
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.