Author: blass uri
Date: 09:57:46 05/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1999 at 10:11:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 29, 1999 at 09:48:05, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On May 29, 1999 at 00:21:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On May 28, 1999 at 19:25:15, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On May 28, 1999 at 18:27:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 28, 1999 at 18:15:30, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On May 28, 1999 at 15:08:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>If Hsu enters next year, they will have to have three categories. >>>>>>>0. Hsu (they can start polishing the brass now, I think). >>>>>>>1. Supercomputers >>>>>>>2. Microcomputers >>>>>> >>>>>>I think that Hsu should be in the same category as Supercomputers. >>>>>Why will they even bother to show up then? Unless all of the supercomputers >>>>>borrow Hsu's chips as add-ons like IBM did, they would have no chance >>>>>whatsoever. >>>> >>>>I do not agree that they would have no chance. >>>> >>>>Super Computers are becoming faster every year and even if Hsu has hardware >>>>advantage(I am not sure about this) they have chances by doing a better program >>>>or by luck. >>>> >>>>In the last WCCC microcomputer(Fritz3) won 2 Supercomputers(Deep thought and >>>>Socrates) and won the championship. >>>> >>>>It is not clear to me that Hsu will win. >>>> >>>>I believe that programs can be significantly improved and that there is a chance >>>>that in 2000-2002 another supercomputer or even a micro will be better than Deep >>>>blue chip. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>> >>>to make this short and succinct: >>> >>> "not a chance in hell..." >> >>Fortunately, chess players are generally not the sort to resign before a game, >>even if their opponents happen to outrate them by a few hundred points. >>Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a tournament. >> >>Unlike some people, I have a high amount of respect for their achievement. This >>does not mean that I think their winning is a foregone conclusion. Conclusions >>are what are made after an event, and if the arrangements a team of people make >>prohibit them from competing, those arrangements prevent them from winning too, >>and of course, from people making conclusions about their play, because they >>don't play. >> >>I expect that if they were playing, they would completely thrash everybody. My >>expectation, however justified, isn't really worth squat, because neither is >>this trememdously big "if". >> >>Hsu's company will have different needs than IBM, and I hope this will result in >>a lot of games being played that are publicly verifiable by the chess card, with >>the likely result that people will be able to infer from its play that DB was >>very, very strong. Not being in a position to guarantee such a thing, I won't. >>That is a job for Hsu's company. >> >>Dave > >My "not a chance in hell" was a response to the last sentence... "by 2000-2002 >another supercomputer or even a micro will be _better_ than DB". DB can always >lose a game. But in 2002 there won't be a program around that can win one of >10 games vs the thing... Because they will still be 2-3 orders of magnitude >slower, particularly if Hsu gets his 10-15 times faster chip redone... That >will put them another 3-4 years (at least) ahead of the pack, beyond where they >already are. I do not know the future and everything is possible. Maybe someone will invent a computer that will be 1000 times faster before 2002. I do not think that it will be the case because something like this was not in the past but I do not know. Another possibility is that someone will do a program that can be 1000 times faster by prunning illogical lines. The fact that humans did not do it in the past does not prove that it is impossible.
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.