Author: walter irvin
Date: 15:30:21 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 18:07:36, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 18:00:29, walter irvin wrote: > >>Deep Blue has great results to its credit but it has had great hardware .the >>following programs at equal speeds are as good or better . >> >>1.cm 6000 >>2.fritz 6 >>3.junior 6 >>4.m-chess 8 >>5.shredder 4 >>6.tiger 12 >> >>at equal mhz programs like fritz 6 would get more nps im sure .they would search >>much deeper than deep blue .in computer vs computer matches speed kills , thats >>why on the ssdf , programs on faster hardware get inflated ratings . > >We have heard this opinion before and it has been discussed recently. > >I hope nobody feels the need to reply to this post. > >-Tom but i have proof my proof is that the advantage deep blue had was A .lots of knowledge B.speed i will address knowledge first .knowledge is defeated by depth .an experiment with Hitec was done where two versions of the program played vs itself .1 version had knowledge removed .at equal ply the version with knowledge won .but when the the depth search was increased on the dumb one it won .so it was proved that depth was more important than knowledge .i did the same experiment with cm 4000 with similar results . with speed i said the program deep blue was average not the hardware .but if given equal mhz the programs such as fritz ect with their much smaller eval would be faster and get deeper and beat deep blue . i guess what im saying is deep blue is 95% hardware 3% software 2% luck .
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.