Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:33:14 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 14:24:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 18, 2002 at 12:47:19, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 18, 2002 at 08:57:47, David Dory wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2002 at 06:35:53, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>I do not think that all of the programmers of today are stupid. >>>>I guess that they found better ideas. >>>> >>>>Uri >>>> >>> >>>Better ideas? That's a relative thing, and we have no way to really compare >>>their ideas (on DB's hardware and software), with ideas used in Rebel, Fritz, >>>CM, ChessTiger, etc., on a PC, except in a very artificial and abstract way. >>> >>>I believe in each case, the programmers found ideas that were APPROPRIATE for >>>their system. After all, the GREAT idea's of today, would have been disastrous >>>to implement on a Fidelity Chess Challenger running with a Zilog Z80 CPU at a >>>BLINDING 4Mhz. >>> >>>The reasons DB would still be kicking ass today, were it still around and being >>>updated, are: >>> >>> 1) Hsu and his team had a history of creating a fantastic chess computer, DT. >>> For all intents and purposes, they really had a doctorate in chess computer >>> science! >>> >>> 2) They used the considerable resources IBM gave them, not just for software >>> improvements, but to build a bunch of custom high speed micro-chips and >>> integrate them into the fastest chess computer of all time. (so far :-)) >>> >>> 3) After a long time working out the bugs, they brought in GM Joel Benjamin >>> to fine tune the openings, etc. >>> >>>How many other developer's do this, to this extent, Uri? >>> >>>It isn't just that Hsu & team were brilliant, or had a TON of resources, or had >>>such sensational experience building a custom chess computer. It was all these >>>things together, and I believe the whole was equal to more than the sum of the >>>parts, which were considerable, in this case. >>> >>>If you had several million to invest in a new fantastic chess playing computer, >>>wouldn't you do what the DB team did? >>> >>>Dave >> >>No >> >>I believe in pruning rules and I would use the money to find better pruning >>rules. >> >> >> >>Uri > > >Pruning rules introduce error. As you go deeper, those errors are >summed. The DB guys instead chose to design hardware to let them go >deeper with _zero_ error in the software search, and some unknown level >of error in the hardware search due to whatever kind of pruning they chose >to implement there... I believe that the right pruning rules practically almost do not introduce errors and searching not deep enough produce more errors. See the mistake of deeper blue in game 2 when it could not see the draw. Uri
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.