Author: Mark Schreiber
Date: 09:35:35 05/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2000 at 11:45:08, Albert Silver wrote: >On May 28, 2000 at 08:47:38, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On May 27, 2000 at 15:27:51, Albert Silver wrote: >> >>>On May 27, 2000 at 14:13:31, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On May 27, 2000 at 13:31:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 26, 2000 at 22:02:57, William Bryant wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 26, 2000 at 13:10:33, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/061931.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Albert Silver >>>>>> >>>>>>In reading the hype of this article, it is quite clear just how much IBM won >>>>>>when Deep Blue beat Kasparov. >>>>>> >>>>>>William >>>>>>wbryant@ix.netcom.com >>>>> >>>>>No kidding. For the next ten years the speed of every computer they release >>>>>will be express in integer multiples of Deep Blue. >>>>> >>>>>And the wire services will continue to pick up their produce announcements, >>>>>because they perceive that the public is interested in Deep Blue. They would >>>>>not be interested in the dry technical details that would comprise these >>>>>announcements if Deep Blue hadn't existed. >>>>> >>>>>bruce >>>> >>>>The question is not what the public is interested in but what very rich people >>>>are interested. >>>> >>> >>>Not quite. The people who hold the money are rarely those who will be using the >>>machine, so that when convincing them to loosen the strings to their purse (now >>>there's an antiquated metaphor!), analogies they can appreciate, such as factors >>>of DB (this computer is 550 times the speed of Deep Blue), are important and do >>>weigh in. Professors and researchers are very rarely the ones who sign the >>>checks after all. >>> >>> Albert Silver >>Hello Albert, >>You are already exagerating it's speed. By next month this thing will be faster >>than the speed of light. :) >> >>Here is the quote from the article: >> >>"Before the win by Deep Blue -- the Finnish computer will be 150 times faster >>than the chess-playing machine -- IBM was No. 3 in a ranking of 500 >>supercomputer installations worldwide." >>Jim Walker >> > >:-) I wasn't trying to be accurate and was merely trying to make a point. > > Albert Silver > I do not trust what is written in this article. There is an obvious blunder. It says, “Before the advent of supercomputers in the early 1990s, . . .” The advent of supercomputers was not the early 1990s. Supercomputers existed in the 1970s. Mark Schreiber > >>> >>> >>>>I believe that the buyers of their super computer will not buy it because of the >>>>deep blue information but because they find that the super computer can help >>>>them in other subjects and the knowledge that deeper blue won kasparov in chess >>>>gives no information if the machine can help them for their needs. >>>> >>>>The number of calculation per second is clearly more relevant. >>>> >>>>Uri
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.