Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:42:09 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 16:17:46, Uri Blass wrote: >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 It is still a micro. Perhaps equivalent to a 5ghz micro (maybe less) but it is still a micro program. And it isn't better than DB unless it proves it by beating Kramnik. We will know before long...
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.