Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:40:13 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 11:22:00, blass uri wrote: >On July 21, 2000 at 11:18:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 21, 2000 at 09:40:46, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>. >> >> >>The contentless poster strikes again. Like another guy we used to have >>here that posted contentless "attaboys" all the time. >> >>But you are using _no_ facts about DB. Or else how about quoting some to >>support your claim? I have posted facts about it quite steadily... numbers >>than can be verified in the computer literature for those so inclined. And >>results that can also be verified. Pick a computer chess event from 1988 to >>1995 and ask about specific results... you might be surprised... >> >>In fact, based on your postings, you _will_ be surprised... > >He will not be surprised based on his posts because the point is not the >performance of deep thought against 386-486 hardware and some cray hardware that >had bugs in part of the cases. > >Uri As I have asked _repeatedly_ here. What evidence do you, or anybody else have, that suggests that the micros made more progress from 1995-2000 than they made from 1988-1995? Because we _know_ the progress DB made when it replaced deep thought in early 1996. And then DB2 when it replaced DB in early 1997. We know how strong DT was in the early 90's... it produced a GM rating over 24 consecutive games at 40/2hr vs GM players to earn the Fredkin stage II prize. We _know_ that DB was more powerful from statements made by Hsu as to results obtained by playing DB 1 vs DT, and then DB2 vs DB1. So we _know_ they made progress. Where was that revolution around 1995 that let the micro programs close the gap that I claim actually widened during that time frame??? Or is it just a feeling of "aw, it had to be true..."
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.