Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:32:41 07/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2000 at 17:48:32, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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...
I have no doubt, but they are commenting on Blitz play for the most part. How
big a difference would this represent in 40/2 as was the case for DJ? I'm sure
it is _much_ stronger but I think that human players do a heck of a lot more
catching up with more time on the clock.
Albert Silver
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>bruce
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.