Author: David Blackman
Date: 19:24:25 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 21:46:38, Roger wrote: >Excerpt from the interview: > >"For instance, if you were to remove the database, you can >have a computer ten times faster than it is today. Ten >times faster than Deep Blue, easily. If it couldn't >consult its opening book, my result would improve >immediately. I think most of the top twenty, thirty >players could beat Beep Blue if it wasn't allowed to >consult an opening database. Or, even the opening >database is restricted to a certain size. What happens >is, their opening database is almost 400-500 MBs of >information. It has access to all the games that are >played but we have to remember all that. Or, if I am >allowed to have a computer with me, okay, I can't check >my thoughts but I can see what was played at any given >time. My result would then go up." > >I think he's wrong about having a computer ten time faster than Deep Blue >without the opening database. > >Still, what to make of the comment that the top twenty or thirty players could >beat Deep Blue if deprived of its open database? > >Roger He is greatly over-estimating the importance of the openning database, for Deep Blue at least. Maybe the top 20 or 30 could beat Deep Blue, maybe not. Certainly any of them against Deep Blue would be a tough match. But Deep Blue with no opening book at all would still be almost as tough. And Deep Blue with a small well chosen opening book of ten thousand positions, would probably be slightly tougher than Deep Blue with a monster database, at least for the first few games.
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.