Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:21:13 04/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2002 at 15:56:37, Mike S. wrote: >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? What I mean is that if another program can play 39 out of 40 deep blue moves, that doesn't mean it is as good as deep blue. That _one_ move might be the critical move... Most _any_ program will find many of the moves played by deep blue. Most will find many of the moves played by _any_ GM player in fact. It is the ones they don't find that are revealing however... > >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 Node rate is interesting to compare when (a) a program is 100x faster and (b) is no "dumber" than the other... Fritz is not a "genius" in terms of smarts... DB knew much more about lots of things than it does...
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.