Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 10:04:58 11/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2001 at 12:53:20, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >On November 19, 2001 at 10:00:00, José Carlos wrote: > >>On November 18, 2001 at 18:11:04, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >> >>>On November 18, 2001 at 17:58:07, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >>> >>>>On November 18, 2001 at 16:38:12, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 18, 2001 at 12:48:37, Jesper Antonsson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 18, 2001 at 11:03:39, Antonio Dieguez wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 18, 2001 at 04:42:33, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>>>>>>>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... >>>>>> >>>>>>Again, that seems like speculation to me. >>>>> >>>>>Yes it is. >>>>> >>>>>I think I would win a bet here anyway :) >>>> >>>>Well, I doubt it, partly because such a Fritz wouldn't be tuned for the speed, >>>>partly because I doubt that their eval is better. But, if you wait 10 years or >>>>so (hopefully), when you can run at 200 Mnps on a serial machine, and then run >>>>new software on that machine, I think *that* machine would be much stronger than >>>>DB, for several reasons. :-) >>> >>>Deep Blue was tuned for its speed, so that is an advantadge for it, but even >>>that way, I hope programs of today can still run on that machine and that they >>>are tested a lot to convince anyone about any conclusion. Time will tell... let >>>stop speculations! :) >> >> I missed this thread, so maybe someone has already pointed this yet, but I'll >>say it anyway: >> >> 1. This has been discussed here many times. >> 2. You can speculate on the strength of Fritz at 200Mnps under some certain >>circumstances you should state before speculating, but you can't speculate on >>Fritz running on DB hardware. That makes absolutely no sense at all. > >If Fritz 7 running at 200MNPS were stronger than DB (if that is possible to >conclude with DB'logs only) then I would think DB search logic is worse, seems >reasonable, and not uninteresting at all. >(of course I don't expect Fritz running on DB, who said that?) I didn't renember the hashtable thing. If DB didn't use much hashtable because a hardware design thing then it turns more complicated... It is all IBM fault. Just marketing stuff, not interested in computer chess. grrr.
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.