Author: Mike S.
Date: 12:56:37 04/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2002 at 13:01:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 09, 2002 at 11:29:45, K. Burcham wrote: > >>(...) >>twelve statements from kramnik interview: >>(...) >>4. In almost every position Fritz7 (600 mhz notebook) was suggesting >>objectively better variations (then Deep Blue). >That is a key statement. "in almost every..." If you play 39 moves like >Capablanca, and one move like a fish, you still lose every game... I don't think you mean, a program must play 40 out of 40 Capablanca moves, to be stronger than Deep Blue? I think it's more like, Deep Blue could play, say 30 moves like Capablanca (missing 10), and the strongest PC soft/hardware of today may find 33 moves. Which would indicates it is most probably better. Or what must happen, before we can say, "this computer is better now, than Deep Blue was." What is the criteria? I don't expect that Deep Blue was the best possible chess computer of all times, throughout eternitiy. :o) I think Fritz' search depth on 8 CPU's will be competitive, compared to Deep Blue (the node rate is not a good figure for comparison, also not in this case IMO). Regards, M.Scheidl
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.