Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:13:11 01/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2003 at 11:05:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On January 12, 2003 at 03:43:46, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >>On January 11, 2003 at 14:32:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>Any software program of today outsearches positional Deep Blue of course, >>>this is clearly the case. >>> >>>also we both know that in 1997 programs knew shit from endgames nor middlegame. >>>That's quite some difference now. In 1997 i remember that beancounters (and DB >>>was a very good beancounter for its time) did pretty well. >> >>As I was trying to say: We know a lot, we speculate a lot, but there is only one >>method to find out if Deep Blue is worse than the current programs: They have to >>play matches. >> >>In other words: I don't take words as facts. Only scores. >> >>Jeroem > >I'm not so sure. Of course I'm on your side in the argument with Vincent but >matches alone might not be satisfying enough. Especially in short exhibition >shows we have some factors that could be clouding our view. The same now in the >Kasparov match if it really takes place. The shortness allows the operators to >manipulate or, let's speak it out, - to gamble. As to prog vs prog matches I do >fully support Bob's argument that 100x kills! There is an assumption that it is 100x but I doubt if that assumption is correct. Maybe it was only 20M nodes and claiming 200M nodes was part of the psychological war against kasparov. Uri
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.