Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:59:11 01/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 2000 at 22:24:25, David Blackman wrote: >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. Don't forget that Kasparov played a couple of oddball openings to take DB out of book very quickly. The tricks didn't result in wins...
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.