Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:01:02 07/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 15:29:51, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On July 21, 2000 at 11:03:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 21, 2000 at 07:42:00, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>On July 21, 2000 at 07:06:08, Alvaro Polo wrote: >>> >>>>On July 21, 2000 at 01:11:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 19:57:16, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 19:11:03, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>[Event "DB-GK the rematch"] >>>>>>>[Site "am Rd1; bm Rf5+"] >>>>>>>[Date "2000.05.31"] >>>>>>>[Round "?"] >>>>>>>[White "DEEP BLUE"] >>>>>>>[Black "Garry Kasparov"] >>>>>>>[Result "0-1"] >>>>>>>[WhiteElo "?"] >>>>>>>[BlackElo "?"] >>>>>>>[FEN "4r3/8/2p2PPk/1p1r4/pP2p1R1/P1B5/2P2K2/8 b - - 0 1"] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>DB played Rd1?? which caused a giant immediate material loss where Rf5+ >>>>>>>is the obvious defence. The most convincing argument is the score DB gave >>>>>>>for Rd1?? way too positive (perhaps Uri remembers) and the very negative >>>>>>>(and correct) scores some of the micro's gave when they did an analysis. >>>>>> >>>>>>Didn't someone say this one was caused by a C macro being improperly expanded or >>>>>>some such? >>>>> >>>>>I don't know and I really don't care. All we have are a few games and >>>>>hiding behind bugs is not a very convincing argument. >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>>If what you are seeking is the truth you should care. >>>> >>>>Alvaro >>> >>>The truth is that Ed, Uri, and Amir are right. DB had bugs >>>and a simple eval (so that HSU could put it into ASICS, HSU >>>was a HW guy Murry was the SW guy, trade offs were made to >>>create ASICS). >>> >>>Best Regards, >>>Chris Carson >> >> >>You are obviously an ASIC expert? And their claim of 8,000 adjustable eval >>terms is therefore bogus? And it was our imagination that it beat Kasparov >>3 years ago? >> >>thought so... >> >>Nice to have someone that doesn't know anything about hardware declaring what >>Hsu could and couldn't do, _after_ he had already done it... > >I do know about ASICs. IIRC, Chris is also a EE. > >Just saying the magic word "ASIC" doesn't mean every term you can possibly dream >of is trivial to implement and runs infinitely fast. > >I believe Amir has already given you examples of terms that would be extremely >hard to evaluate given DB's architecture. > >If you refuse to believe two EEs and someone who has obviously carefully studied >DB (more carefully than you, anyway) then go ahead. But don't expect respect >from any of us. > >-Tom Which one of you has studied DB more carefully than me? I must have missed that since I seem to be the only one willing to ask them questions about their hardware, rather than speculating on what it can or can't do. I haven't seen _anybody_ give examples of anything that can't be done in DB's hardware. Simply because I don't believe such a thing exists. I also don't see two EEs here. Maybe Chris, although I don't know. Who is the other one with an EE degree? As far as his claim that it _must_ be a simple eval to be put into an ASIC, that is not even worth commenting on, it is so far out in left-field.
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.