Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:17:46 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 15:30:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 14:27:08, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On August 30, 2001 at 10:23:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Let's stick to my boat analogy for the moment. I'm currently running a 28" >>>pitch prob, to reach a top speed of around 85 miles per hour. I want to be >>>able to outrun my friends on top-end, and I _also_ want to be able to beat them >>>in a zero-to-sixty miles per hour race. To do that I would probably run a >>>24" pitch prop for better acceleration. But I have to compromise. best top >>>speed might be 30" pitch, best acceleration might be at 24" pitch. I pick >>>something in the middle to give me the best of both words. >>> >>>Now for deep blue. They had more money to spend than I do. So they go off and >>>build a variable-pitch prop that starts off at 22" pitch, and progresses to 30" >>>at high rpms. Their special hardware solution blows me away in the drag >>>race, it blows me away in the top-end race. And it blows me away at anything >>>in between. Because they didn't have to make a compromise since they were >>>designing hardware to do _exactly_ whatever the task at hand was. >>> >>>In DB, they don't _need_ to make compromises as we do in software programs. >>>Doing so would make no sense at all... They simply do whatever they want, >>>and they make it fast due to the hardware... >> >>It is also possible that since they had an engine a hundred times more powerful >>than yours, they just used the first prop they found, and since it worked, no >>problem. >> >>Now make your engine twenty times faster, but pay very careful attention to what >>prop you use. >> >>Who wins? Their engine is still faster, but perhaps they lost more than 80% of >>their power due to the bad prop. >> >>We don't know, because only one boat is in the water. >> >>This is not to disparage DB. Maybe they had a wonderful prop. Nobody knows. >> >>To use yet another metaphor, I'm perfectly able to sense a door. I can >>understand that it's closed. I can feel it. I can knock on it. And I can come >>to the conclusion that if I walk into it, I'm going to break my nose. >> >>But what we have here is a door that doesn't exist anymore, and you're telling >>me how I'd not only break my nose if I tried to walk through it, I'd wreck my >>car if I tried to drive through it. >> >>I'd prefer to at least be able to knock on it to know that it's not made out of >>paper. Everyone has a right to ask for that much evidence. Philosophy and >>science aren't built on, "This is true, trust me". >> >>bruce > > >I agree. There are three positions someone can take on the DB issue. I will >list them and then pick the one I like: > >1. DB sucks and is worse than today's micros. > >2. DB is invincible and is so far above today's micros it is not worth > discussing. > >3. There is ample evidence that older versions of the thing were invincible > when they were playing. And the newest version did something nobody else > has repeated, yet (beating Kasparov in a match). This leads me to believe > that they certainly are ahead of today's machines, until one of today's > machines shows some evidence of catching up to them. > >I fall in category 3 above. Several fall in category 1. Category 2 isn't >really worth talking about. I would personally be just as happy as anything >if the (1) group would just remain silent. Because (1) is not supportable by >any evidence other than prejudice. I think there is a lot to be learned from >the machine, and it will be learned over time... There are more than 3 categories. There are people who have no opinion in the question if deeper blue is better or worse than the best micros. I did not say that Deeper blue is worse than today micros and I only said that it is worse than the Deep Fritz that is going to play against kramnik. The deep fritz that is going to play against kramnik is not a micro because it is using 8 processors. 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.