Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 19:15:01 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 00:21:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... LOL! I'm sure you're correct Robert, that Fritz is inferior in it's "Chess Knowledge" compared to Deeper Blue, for obvious reasons, one, if it had much more knowledge, it would run very slow. The advantage of a supercomputer with 488 (?) dedicated "Chess Chips" to work as software etc. makes for one "Mean Chess Machine"! Regardless, FWIW, what top chess engine uses the most "Chess Knowledge", and how much does it help, as well as how much performance it loses? Terry
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.