Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:48:32 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 14:51:41, Albert Silver wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 14:36:00, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On July 18, 2000 at 13:39:01, Jerry Adams wrote: >> >>> >>> I doubt if DeepBlue with all it's billions of calculations per second could >>>score much better than DeepJunior at Dortmund. Seem it is a bad day for the >>>Advocates of "Hardware is everything" Theory. Deepblue could probally Easily >>>Defeat DeepJr in a Match, but against humans the story is different. I hope >>>programmers Continue to Develope Software and not sit back lazily waiting for >>>Hardware to do all the work. >> >>When I saw the thread title I thought you might have gotten the title backwards, >>since Junior had huge hardware at Dortmund. But then I saw the reference to DB >>and I said, "Oh, that." >> >>I think all that was proven here is that a computer can do well in a tournament >>with GM's. I haven't looked at all the games, but from the results it seems >>like the computer belonged in the tournament. That's a big thing. >> >>Nothing about DB is proven, because the DB matches were short, Kasparov was >>stressed, and the computer arrived out of nowhere and vanished without a trace. >>It could be a lot better or worse than we perceive it now, and we have no >>practical way of knowing which. >> >>Junior at least seems to be willing to come out and play, and I commend Amir for >>this. >> >>The fact is though that Junior was on some great hardware, so I don't know if >>you are proving your point by bringing up the issue of hardware, or disproving >>it. > >One way, though one would have to have the accurate move times to do so, would >be to simply take an inferior machine and see if it is capable of finding the >moves played in the games. One wouldn't be able to calculate any Elo ratings >with this, but it would be interesting to see how many moves were made possible >due to the hardware. If Amir has this available, I think it would be wonderful >if he could post this (the time per move for both sides). > > Albert Silver > Anecdotal evidence also suggests that hardware is very important. Each time I upgraded on ICC, from the P6/200, to the 4 X p6/200, to the quad xeon/450, to the quad xeon/550... GM players would comment on its newfound skill... IE, "what did you do to it recently? It has really improved... etc..." And hardware would be the only change of any significance, and they could "feel the difference..." I'd think an 8x700mhz machine would be very strong feeling... >> >>bruce
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.