Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:33:20 07/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2001 at 07:01:15, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 31, 2001 at 03:23:47, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On July 31, 2001 at 02:59:10, Joshua Lee wrote: >> >>>Is it possible to use the VIA 800Mhz chips which don't require a fan (i think) >>>in parallel to where any program now could outsearch any Deep Blue of the past? >>> >>>It might take a few thousand chips but if it looks deeper it should mostly be >>>better. >>> >>>I do know that there were supposed to be hundreds of parameters so i would bet >>>it is better positionally than most comps now >> >> >>??? >> >>What they call a "parameter" is for example the value of a white rook on A1. >>There are 6 piece types, 2 sides, and 64 squares. That makes already 768 >>parameters. >> >>Hey I've got thousands of parameters in Tiger then! >> >>They were better in search, that's for sure, because of their processing power. >> >>Better in evaluation? That remains to be proved. > >Better in search? >It also remains to be proved. > >More nodes per second does not mean better in search because other programs may >have better search rules. > >I believe they were inferior in evaluation. >The size of the evaluation function is not the important thing. >The important things is to get the right numbers in the evaluation function. > >If you have wrong tables the fact that you have big tables is not going to help >you. > >Uri If their evaluation numbers were so wrong, and their search was so weak, _I_ for one wish I could make those same mistakes. What other program has come close to beating a current world champion in a match? Particularly when it was obvious that Kasparov wasn't "playing for a draw in any game."\
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.