Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:07:34 07/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2000 at 00:51:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 26, 2000 at 00:41:03, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >[snip] >>I think we're only yammering on about it because of Bob Hyatt. The only people I >>see who are pro-DB are simply repeating what Hyatt has said in the past about >>how great DB is. In my opinion, there has not been enough information published >>by IBM or anybody else to prove DB's strength at chess. We may point to DT and >>assume that DB is better, but as Chris Carson has done such a great job of >>researching, PC programs have also done better that DT. > >If you can find one thread where Bob started out talking about Deep Blue, I >might begin to believe you. However, according to my (often faulty) >recollection, he is invariably making a response, not an initiation. But all of the troll/newbie threads would end quickly if we just said "nobody knows how strong DB is relative to PC programs." Instead, Hyatt is the first to jump in, and he always says "DB is phenominal!" That seems to spark more debate than the original post. >>As Hyatt will invariably point out, DB has "done the deed" and beat Kasparov in >>a match. That's great, but how many programs have been given an opportunity to >>do this deed? > >All of them that spent multiple millions of dollars preparing for such a match. > >>Assuming that every non-DB program would fail is completely >>biased, considering that they never had a chance. > >Who is assuming that? I don't think anyone has said that all other programs >would fail completely. However, I don't think they would fare as well as DB. Okay, so you're not making an outright assumption, but your bias is extremely clear. And why? Because of some IBM propoganda? >But again, that's nothing but an opion without substance. Be that as it may, >put up the cash like IBM did, and Kasparov will appear out of the mist and >suddenly solidfy right before your eyes. If I could put up the cash, I would. Unfortunately, IBM didn't choose to sponsor me. >>If IBM said that DB searched 500k NPS instead of 100-200M NPS, it would be given >>exactly zero attention on CCC. > >Even if it still beat Kasparov? I think it would be *more* amazing, just as I More amazing than what? In this hypothetical situation, there is no "fast DB." And it didn't "still" beat Kasparov; it just beat him. So what would you think of this? I see two possibilities: 1) "Wow, IBM and DB must have been given software tips from space aliens." 2) "Wow, my software at home also searches 500k NPS. So I guess it has a serious chance against Kasparov. That's great!" -Tom
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.