Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 03:55:04 11/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 17, 2001 at 20:22:37, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >On November 17, 2001 at 18:05:09, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>Hi Jesper, >>The evidence that nowadays chess programs are better optimized than Deep Blue's >>software is that when you are talking about D.B. you are actually talking about >>a project stopped in '97. > >Excuse me, but what evidence? You probably don't know that have been some advancement in computer chess since then or do you think that programmers are bound to old schemes with no new ideas coming from the research world...? > >>Since then many things changed and evolved both in hardware and in software >>research to make better computer chess machines: > >Sorry, but DB ran clearly superior hardware compared to micros of today. And >software, please show me some new (since 1997) software algorithms that gives >decisive advantages. This is taken from IBM D.B. FAQ : http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/meet/html/d.3.3a.html#ai Does Deep Blue use artificial intelligence? The short answer is "no." Earlier computer designs that tried to mimic human thinking weren't very good at it. No formula exists for intuition. So Deep Blue's designers have gone "back to the future." Deep Blue relies more on computational power and a simpler search and evaluation function. BTW If you want to be more informed about advancements I think you need to search through I.C.C.A. and/or A.C.M. archives. > >>we have a clear evidence of >>this fact looking at recent man-machine challenges with the outstanding results >>of Chess Tiger in Argentina as an example, and with the incoming challenge >>Kramnik vs. Fritz7 , unbelievable few years ago in the personal computer class. > >Why do you call a not yet played match "evidence"? Sorry , but the only fact to have organized it is significative IMHO. And why is the "man-machine" >challenges "evidence"? Has any computer but DB succeded in beating any of the >top ten grandmasters at standard time controls in a six game serious match? Simply because it wasn't organized...in other words you need many funds to have a match against any top ten players. >I think not. That top commercial micro programs fare well against GMs at fast >time controls is nothing really new, and DB is even more superior in that >domain, as faster hardware is worth more at fast time controls (due to >"diminishing returns"). In Argentina the time controls weren't *fast*... I'm sorry to disagree on that point. If I remember well there was a match organized between Rebel and DB junior... I let you guess who win ... Best Regards, Otello. > >Regards >Jesper
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.