Author: Don Dailey
Date: 02:26:15 01/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
>I can already see Bruce's look of dismay as he says: "You see? You see? >I told you it would crop up again!" ;-) That is what I pictured. Here's one: I wonder who was better in their prime? Fischer or Kasparov? >Rating points per nodes searched? Somehow that looks very fishy. >Different hardware has allowed different types of programs to be >developped and as far as DB is concerned, it's quite simply impossible >to compare as the software was developped around the hardware. It's not >portable. I think that this kind of comparison is moot so I don't try >it. The software is the hardware and vice-versa. You can't downsize DB >as the program IS the hardware every bit as much as it is the software. >Change the hardware and you don't have DB, you have something else, not >even just the DB software as the software can ONLY exist on that >hardware. I read Shroeder's response as well, and he raises an >interesting point. How to know when the computer chose the best move, >and even when it does and we know it, then how do you know that it can >do it consistently and that it isn't a fluke? I think Shroeder is more interested in why it plays a certain move. It's getting harder to tell now. I don't think any computer is very good yet in absolute terms but they are starting to get interesting now. But we still have a long way to go. I hope this doesn't provoke a vicious response by someone. - 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.