Author: Don Dailey
Date: 23:35:51 01/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 1998 at 18:35:32, Jay Scott wrote: >On January 06, 1998 at 17:30:40, Don Dailey wrote: >>In >>every way (except raw speed) the Deep Blue team is handicapped so you >>can not expect them to compete with the highly tuned micro programs. >This is not true. The hardware has one big advantage besides >outrageous speed: it's parallel at the transistor level. You can >get more evaluation function terms at each node by adding >transistors, and adding transistors does not slow you down. Hi Jay, I consider this a speed issue too. I concede the quantity issue, they do more things and do them all faster. >So a hardware chess machine has a different speed/knowledge >tradeoff than a software chess program. Adding knowledge is >cheap, at least until you use up your real estate, so it makes >sense to add as much knowledge as you can. In software, adding >knowledge almost always slows you down, so you have to be >more careful. With as many devices as you can get on a chip >nowadays, I imagine that its natural for chess hardware to have >>So does Deep Blue suck? In rating points per node searched, YES. > >Well, what about rating points per log nodes searched? All parallel programs compare poorly to serial programs by this criteria. >I don't think we have enough information to judge how well >the Deep Blue team did in exploiting their potential advantage >in knowledge. Their development time was relatively short, as >these things go, so perhaps not well. But on the other hand >they had plenty of talent, and they're perfectly capable of >coming up with good new ideas. I agree on this too. I think they probably felt a lot of frustration during the whole ordeal but I'm just guessing. Beating Kasparov must have been sweet for them. - Don
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.