Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:35:01 09/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2000 at 01:23:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 23:39:29, walter irvin wrote: > >>On September 14, 2000 at 18:40:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:42:28, Dan Ellwein wrote: >>> >>>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:39:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:36:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:33:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:30:07, Dan Ellwein wrote: >>>>>>>[SNIP] >>>>>>>>I guess it would be impractical to run this test with opening book disabled... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>(startin' with the very first move have the computer think on its own)... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>but i wonder what the data would look like if you did... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>it may be that there would not be a cut-off at iteration 19... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My guess is that in the first ten moves no program on earth can get to ply 19 >>>>>>>unless it does a ludicrous amount of speculative pruning. Even 16 plies would >>>>>>>be formidable. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>We are close. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Christophe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>DB was "there" in 1997. >>>>> >>>>>:) >>>> >>>>Bob >>>> >>>>What would it take to get Deep Blue up and running and give us some data >>>>comparable to what Ed has done here... >>> >>> >>>Several million dollars, an act of congress, and divine intervention, I am >>>afraid. The several million dollars part is the _easiest_ of the required >>>events. :) >>> >>>We do have some data for 6 games vs Kasparov. Someone could hand-compute the >>>above for DB using that data, and get a rough approximation of what kind of >>>'change expectancy' it had for each additional ply. >> >>i figure your as good as the deep blue teem , what sort of hardware would you >>require to compete with deep blue and what program would you use??? > >I think your figuring is probably inaccurate. The DB guys were _very_ >bright. And there were several of them. I can guarantee you I would >rather work in a setting with 4 bright chess people at my elbows, as >opposed to a setting with zero. > >I could "compete" with any hardware. But if you mean "play equally or better >than" when you say compete, then there is no hardware available today that I >would want to carry into such a match. Other people including programmers have different opinion and the fact is that IBM does not want a match. Deep blue is the only program that cannot compete in the meaning of playing because IBM does not want it to compete. I can probably hit 1/10th of their >search speed, maybe even 1/5th with some _real_ sophisticated hardware. But >I couldn't do what they did in their evaluation without dragging performance >back down by at least a factor of 10x... so that in reality, I might hit >1/100th to 1/50th of their effective speed. If I got lucky with hardware. I think that it is better not to discuss about Deep blue because we cannot get into an agreement. Uri
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.