Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:38:29 08/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2002 at 20:25:16, Michael Babigian wrote: >On August 10, 2002 at 20:07:12, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: > >>On August 10, 2002 at 17:41:18, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>You cannot decide based on one position that the latest PC software is behind >>>Deep blue. >> >> >>Isn't it tricky to compare dedicated hardware based Deep Blue with non-dedicated >>software based current commercial programs? >>What if a program like Fritz or so would be adapted or compiled to be used as a >>hardware configuration like Deep Blue? >> >>Just speculating, I don't know the answer. >> >>J. >I see what your getting at, but I'm not disputing the clever programming in >today's software. I'm just noting the relative strengths between systems. I'm >sure if Fritz could calculate as fast as Deeper Blue, it would likely play >better in a match. I just don't think that the current level of "clever >programming" is yet enough to make up for the speed handicap. > >Mike This is _the_ point that goes overlooked all the time. DB was _very_ good. _and_ very fast. I wouldn't venture to speculate whether a commercial program might have a somewhat better search or not. But _not_ enough better to offset that huge computational speed advantage. And _no_ programming tricks are going to offset that speed either. But the argument will rage on anyway, of course... Todays micros are somewhat like the motorcycles at the drag races. Marvelously tuned, incredible power from a small power plant, very good. But they get blown off the track by the lumbering top-fuel dragster with the enormous V-8 plus supercharger plus nitromethane fuel + etc. Sometimes brute power _does_ make the difference. It certainly did for DB...
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.