Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:08:53 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2000 at 10:00:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 19, 2000 at 00:13:53, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On November 18, 2000 at 23:57:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 18, 2000 at 22:47:33, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On November 18, 2000 at 21:01:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 18, 2000 at 17:30:37, Garry Evans wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 18, 2000 at 16:54:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 18, 2000 at 15:45:32, walter irvin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>if you had a cray super computer in your house , so your time would not be >>>>>>>>limited .what kind of chess program would you create?? another Cray Blitz or >>>>>>>>would it be more like crafty .Also if you played it on ICC what blitz rating >>>>>>>>would you expect that you would get ? how many nps do you imagine you would get >>>>>>>>if it were the 32 processor Cray ??? I think it would be about as interesting as >>>>>>>>the second comming of deep blue .Also what do you think your chances to be world >>>>>>>>champion with that beast be?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The program would be a hybrid approach. To run fast on the Cray requires >>>>>>>a lot of vectorization throughout the program. Bitmaps are cute, but they >>>>>>>don't run fast on a Cray without some vector stuff as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>NPS? CB could do 7M. Crafty should be able to do the same. It would >>>>>>>be tough... but it wouldn't be Deep Blue by any stretch. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think Deep Jr. and Deep Fritz are performing nearly as well as Deep blue >>>>>>has. NPS is not everything, I think the Software is just as important? Am I >>>>>>wrong? >>>>> >>>>>Short answer: yes. :) >>>>> >>>>>DB had both good software _and_ good hardware, contrary to what some would >>>>>have you believe. >>>> >>>>Whether or not the software was good is a point of religion, and regarding this >>>>issue, I am agnostic in the strictest sense. What you say may be true. It may >>>>be false. I don't think it's possible to know. >>>> >>>>bruce >>>> >>> >>>If you know the guys responsible, then you _know_ they didn't do anything >>>"half-way"... >>> >> >>Considering the brutal amount of computer power behind the Deep Blue program, >>could they have acomplished basically the same thing _without_ a good programs? >>Would the hardware have gotten around "half-way" efforts in programming, or >>would the whole event have fallen on it's face with a "half-way" programming >>effort. >> >>Pete > > >If you follow their evolution closely, the answer becomes apparent. When they >first burst onto the scene in 1986, their hardware was quite fast, but their >software was fairly poor. But over the next 10 years, there were advances >on _both_ fronts. The main difference between the DB that lost to Kasparov >and the DB that beat him was (a) new software and (b) new hardware to support >the new software ideas. If I recall correctly, Kasparov was defeated because DB whipped him, in the critical game of the match, while both DB and Kasparov were in their opening books. Kasparov forgot a transposition and that's what killed him in that game. So you need to add that the new DB had a better opening book, too, in addition to the other differences.
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.