Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 08:03:39 11/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 18, 2001 at 04:42:33, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On November 17, 2001 at 18:58:57, Antonio Dieguez wrote: > >>On November 17, 2001 at 18:24:20, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >> >>>On November 17, 2001 at 16:02:49, Joshua Lee wrote: >>> >>>>Even without the massive hardware and despite how much slower it would be is >>>>there enough knowledge about how Deep thought/ Blue Played to re-create it? >>>>How much time and money would it take? >>> >>>Hi Joshua, >>>I think that as already stated somewhere in this forum , the D.B. algorithms , >>>evals and so on are pretty standard ones and to be more clear are a bit outdated >>>since that project was stopped on '97 by the IBM. >>>The great "plus" of D.B. was and still is the hardware base of calculus with >>>specialized chips capable to reach an outstanding value of 200 >>>Megapositions/second . >>> >>>Kind regards, >>>Otello. >> >>Hi Otello, the eval of DB is standard and even outdated? how you know certainly >>this? >>I think it was also stated somewhere in this forum that db eval was very complex >>and knowing a lot of a lot, just not enough tested. They even had a gm there, >>and a lot of speed, so why the eval could have been simple? I don't think so. > >I didn't tell that was *simple* but just *standard* , the true novelty of it >derives from the fact that is implemented on hardware so you can add an huge >bunch of functions to it: I meant that no revolutionary s/w algorithms to >optimize the search were implemented in D.B. Okey, we could say that the eval is standard somehow, but not outdated. I was not speaking about the search. >The real gain would be to marry the hardware of D.B. to the software algoritms >of Fritz7 or Chess Tiger IMHO. Yep, that programs with 200 MNPS should be much more stronger than Deep Blue...
This page took 0.01 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.