Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:55:08 07/31/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 31, 2001 at 13:46:22, odell hall wrote: >On July 31, 2001 at 08:33:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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 > > >What Modern program has had the opportunity to run on the Hardware that Deepblue >ran on?? I do not think that Deepblue's results are indicative of how smart it >was, but that it had a a huge billion Dollar company that could afford the >machinery to make deepblue shine, I think Chrisopher with Chess Tiger, was as >succesfull on the puny pen 3 866 as deepblue, that is something much more >impressive, It's not so much that the designers of Deepblue are so Brilliant, >but had the money to back them up, I wonder how Ed shroeder or Christopher would >do if they had the kind of financial backing that the programmers of Deep Blue >had ? I guarentee kasparov would not even have Won a Game!!!!!!! Why would someone who knows so little about the history of computer chess ramble on so much about the topic? You do know that DT was _the_ design for the deep blue chips. You do know they were done by a graduate student for a few hundred dollars of hardware cost? Of course you didn't. But you know enough to ramble on about something that you don't understand. If you want to think the DB guys were idiots... that is your business. But I can tell you who the idiot _really_ is. And here is a hint: IBM does _not_ hire them. Not for 6 figure salaries. As a group hire to boot. think about it before popping off nonsense...
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.