Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:38:52 03/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2001 at 09:20:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On March 29, 2001 at 16:54:11, Rajen Gupta wrote: > >>On March 28, 2001 at 23:14:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On March 28, 2001 at 16:38:31, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>> >>>>chinook ckeckers, (the checkers equivalent of deep blue)is ready to face all >>>>comers on its web site(admittedly a single processor version, but the same >>>>software)why cant deep blue or even deep blue junior do the same? is it because >>>>it is scared of being exposed for what it really is? >>>> >>>>rajen >>> >>> >>>Why would they be afraid to expose it as an incredible chess-playing >>>machine? Can't we figure that out from the Kasparov match? >> >> >>perhaps not very incredible-may have just got lucky with a nervous kasparov and >>may find the new ''deep programmes''a different cup of tea >> >>rajen > > >It would be quite interesting for someone to take one of today's programs that >can search 1M nodes per second, and play a match vs a 20 year old program that >is given 1,000 times as much time per move. Do you _really_ think that a >program of today would do all that well against (say) chess genius 2, with >genius having a 1,000 time advantage? I guess that it depends on the time control and when the time control is slower the top program of today is going to have better results. If you play 1 second per move for Gambit2 against 1000 second per move for Genius2 then I expect Genius2 to win convincingly. If you play 180 seconds per move for Gambit2 against 180000 seconds per move for Genius2 then I expect a result of 50%. Unfortunately one game in the last case may take some monthes. I can add also that Genius2 is less than 20 years old. 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.