Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:26:22 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 18:53:39, Jerry Adams wrote: >On July 18, 2000 at 18:14:51, Rajen Gupta 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. >> >>Hi jerry:you obviously have got the gist of your message mixed up:it is >>essentially hardware that is powering junior to such great levels; just as it >>was the deeper blue 2 with 3-4 times as powerful hardware as db 1 which finally >>manged to thrash kasparov. >> >>you don't really believe that junior 6 on a single pentium 600 with 64 megs of >>ram would have gone anywhere do you? >> >>rajen gupta > > Well Actually, Yes I do!! If you look at the Rebel Grandmaster challenge >series you will notice that not only Did Rebel Draw 2750 rated annand And what was the time control for the Anand win? Did you happen to miss that? >but it >also defeated two very strong grandmasters! The Annand game was on K62-450 >hardware, the others on k63-600. I am not sure that We know exactly How much >Programs actually gain from hardware increases when matched against humans. I >think it is pretty well established that they gain ,no one knows exactly how >well junior6 would have performed on a pent600. >I noticed on my pentIII600 >Junior 6 found a significant amount of the moves from dortmund that Deepjr >Played, and this was achieved within Standard tournament time controls. My >opinion is that even the most Knowledable Computer Chess Scientist can only >guess, when it comes to Elo ratings of computers, how much Hardware means, ect, >etc, You're probably correct there, but it's an _educated_ guess of 50-70 ELO per doubling of CPU. That means an ELO difference of (estimate 60)*8 = 540 * .75(smp loss) = 405 ELO. That's probably too high, but it's probably not off by more than a factor of 2 in either direction (WAG). >I think there are alot of unknowns in computer chess, Which makes it so >incredibly interesting. To me, it's causing the unknowns to become more certain that is interesting.
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.